BS  1180  .B4  1910 

Berry,  George  Ricker,  1865- 

1945. 
The  Old  Testament  among  the 


Cbc  Old  Cestament 

among 

Cbc  Semitic  Religions 


*     JUN  23  1910 


Cbe  Old  Cestament 

mm 

ClK  Semitic  Religions 

/BV 

George  Ricker  Berry,  Pb.  D.,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Semitic  Canauages,  €olaate  University 


%«i 


ML  SEWV^ 


PhiladtlDWa 

Cbe  Griffitb  $  Rowland  Press 

Boston  eiticago  St.  Couis 


Co 
tiM  memory  ot 

e.  c.  B. 


Copyright  1910  by 
J.  ROWLAND,  Secretary 


Published  March,  1910 


preface 

Within  recent  years  much  has  been  written 
concerning  the  relation  of  the  Hebrews  to  the 
surrounding  nations,  especially  Babylonia  and 
Assyria.  While  many  phases  of  this  relation 
have  been  discussed  with  great  fulness,  the  most 
fundamental  question  has  received  a  relatively 
inadequate  consideration.  This  general  question 
is,  What  features  of  the  religious  teachings,  or 
theology,  of  the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  con- 
sidered common  to  the  Hebrews  and  some  other 
nation  or  nations,  and  what  features  are  distinct- 
ive. Various  elements  in  this  question  have  been 
discussed,  but  it  has  been  approached  usually  from 
the  other  side,  with  the  consideration,  e,  g.,  of  the 
features  which  Babylonia  has  contributed  to  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  this  general  question  which 
the  present  writer  proposes  for  consideration. 

The  nations  to  be  embraced  in  this  discussion 
evidently  should  include  all  the  Semitic  nations, 

5 


O  PREFACE 

SO  far  as  material  is  available ;  for  the  association 
of  the  Hebrews  was  largely  with  Semitic  nations. 
Further,  it  is  a  question  not  alone  of  national  en- 
vironment but  of  national  inheritance.  Some  ref- 
erence will  also  be  made  to  the  religion  of  Egypt. 
It  is  held  by  some  that  the  Egyptians  were  a  Sem- 
itic people.  The  present  writer  does  not  accept 
this  view,  but  recognizes  that  the  Egyptians  were 
frequently  subject  to  Semitic  influences — religious 
as  well  as  other — from  an  early  period.  The 
Egyptian  sojourn  of  the  Hebrews,  however,  and 
the  intercourse  between  the  two  nations  during 
the  subsequent  history,  indicate  that  there  was  op- 
portunity for  influence  by  one  nation  upon  the 
other.  Nevertheless,  the  general  study  which  the 
writer  has  given  to  the  matter  has  convinced  him 
that  any  such  influence  was  comparatively  slight. 
Hence,  it  does  not  seem  important  to  make  any 
extended  comparison  with  the  Egyptian  religion, 
but  preferable  to  limit  such  comparison  to  a  few 
points  of  special  importance.  No  reference  is 
made  to  possible  influence  upon  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching  by  the  Persian  religion,  the  religion 
of  Zarathushtra.    If  there  was  such  influence,  as 


PREFACE  7 

seems  probable,  it  included  only  a  few  points  and 
embraced  simply  details,  so  that  it  may  here  be 
disregarded.  Practically,  then,  the  comparison  is 
between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  other  Semitic 
religions. 

So  far  as  a  common-Semitic  element  appears 
from  this  study,  or  even  an  element  common  to  the 
Hebrews  and  one  or  more  of  the  other  Sem- 
itic nations,  it  may,  aside  from  the  possibility  of 
independent  development,  be  explanied  in  two 
principal  ways.  One  is  by  influence  of  one  nation 
upon  another,  either  by  definite  borrowing  or  in 
a  less  specific  way;  the  other  is  by  inheritance 
from  common  ancestors.  Some  reference  will  in- 
evitably be  made  to  these  possibilities  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion,  but  the  general  matter 
will  be  considered  more  directly  at  its  conclusion. 

It  is  recognized,  of  course,  that  any  results 
reached  in  this  study  must  be  provisional  and  held 
with  all  due  reserve.  That  is  a  necessary  result 
from  the  fragmentary  nature  of  the  material. 
The  new  evidence  that  is  constantly  being  made 
available,  especially  in  the  Babylonian  field,  will 
inevitably  modify  many  features  as  they  now  ap- 


8  PREFACE 

pear.  At  the  same  time,  the  material  now  avail- 
able is  sufficient  so  that  some,  at  least  provisional, 
results  can  be  reached ;  and  it  is  not  probable  that 
all  results  now  attained  can  be  radically  changed 
by  increase  of  knowledge.  An  attempt  to  formu- 
late conclusions  cannot  wait  indefinitely  for  ad- 
vancing knowledge,  otherwise  no  conclusions 
could  be  reached  in  any  field. 

Colgate  University,  January  i,  1910.  "•    •*^'    ■"• 


Contcnte 


PART  I.     GENERAL  SURVEY 

Chapter  Page 

I.  Sketch  of  Semitic  History 13 

11.  Semitic  Religious  Literature 19 

IIL  Preliminary  Problems   28 

PART  IL     DIVINE  BEINGS 

I.  The  Divine  Nature 35 

IL  Metaphysical  Attributes 57 

III.  Moral  Attributes   70 

PART  IIL     MAN 

L  Sin   87 

IL  Salvation  through  Sacrifice 99 

III.  Salvation  through  Incantation..  142 

IV.  Salvation  in  Other  Ways 146 

9 


lO  CONTENTS 

PART  IV.     THE  FUTURE  LIFE 

Chapter  Page 

I.  The  General  Conception 165 

11.  Rewards  and  Punishments 173 

PART  V.     GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS 

General  Conclusions   185 

A  Selected  Bibliography 203 


PART  I 
GENERAL  SURVEY 


SKETCH    OF   SEMITIC    HISTORY 

CONCERNING  the  cradle  of  the  Semites  in 
any  absolute  sense,  it  is  impossible  to  speak 
with  assurance.  That  involves  the  general  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  and  distribution  of  man  upon 
earth,  and  goes  back  into  prehistoric  times.  Con- 
cerning the  common  distributing  point  of  the 
Semitic  races,  however,  the  home  in  which  they 
lived  in  early  times  as  one  people,  there  are  some 
definite  indications.  This  common  home  is  gen- 
erally considered  to  have  been  Arabia.  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  here:  it 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  in  the  judgment  of  the 
writer  the  indications  point  clearly  to  this  conclu- 
sion.^ This  early  home  is  to  be  sought  in  Central 
Arabia,  the  natural  abiding-place  of  the  nomads, 
rather  than  in  the  extreme  north  or  south.  From 
this  early  home  came  successive  migratory  move- 
ments toward  the  north,  resulting  chiefly  from 

1  Concerning  this  and  other  points  in  the  general  sketch  here 
given,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  article  by  the  writer,  "  Semitic 
Nations,"  in  the  "  Encyclopedia  Americana,"  Vol.   XIV. 

13 


14  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

over-population.  The  first  of  these  was  the  Bab- 
ylonian migration.  Even  the  approximate  date  of 
this  cannot  be  determined  with  any  approach  to 
certainty.  Winckler  assigns  an  interval  of  about 
a  thousand  years  between  the  principal  migra- 
tions, and  makes  the  date  of  this  one  about  3400 
B.  C.  But  most  authorities  would  consider  it 
many  centuries  earlier  than  this,  and  Winckler 
allows  the  possibility  of  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  movement  being  earlier.^  The  next  wave 
of  migration  was  the  Canaanite.  From  this 
came  the  people  of  Canaan,  Phoenicia,  and  vicin- 
ity, including  the  Hebrews  as  one  of  the  later 
representatives  of  the  movement.  The  date  of 
this  migration  as  given  by  Winckler,  2400-2100 
B.  C,  may  be  accepted  as  approximately  correct. 
For  the  next  movement,  the  Aramaic,  Winckler 
gives  the  dates  from  the  fifteenth  to  the  thirteenth 
century.  The  culmination  of  this  movement, 
however,  should  perhaps  be  regarded  as  later  than 
these  dates.  The  Aramaic  tribes  spread  over 
Mesopotamia  and  Syria,  and  to  some  extent  also 
over  portions  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  The  last 
wave  was  the  Arabian,  the  movement  of  the  Arabs 
into  Syria,  in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  B.  C. 

1  See  "  The  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  2if. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 5 

In  all  the  cases  cited  the  movement  is  not  limited 
to  the  dates  above  given,  but  was  in  force  both 
before  and  after,  these  dates  indicating  no  more 
than  the  crest  of  the  wave.  Along  with  these 
came  a  southern  migration,  that  of  nomadic  Arabs 
into  Southern  Arabia,  where  they  adopted  a  set- 
tled habit  of  life.  This  apparently  coincided  ap- 
proximately with  that  of  the  Arameans,  or  may 
have  been  somewhat  earlier. 

From  the  Babylonian  migration  resulted  the 
Babylonian  people  and  empire.  The  Babylonians 
as  a  nation  had  a  distinct  history  until  their  con- 
quest by  Cyrus,  in  538  B.  C,  after  which  they 
never  again  regained  their  separate  national  exist- 
ence. To  an  unusual  extent  the  Babylonians 
absorbed  foreign  elements,  for  the  most  part  non- 
Semitic.  In  their  early  history  they  were  prob- 
ably mingled  with  the  Sumerians,  their  predeces- 
sors in  the  land.  At  later  times  conquest  by  the 
Elamites  and  Cassites  caused  further  admixture. 
The  Chaldeans  who  ruled  in  the  new  Babylonian 
empire  were  doubtless  a  later  wave  of  Semitic 
migration,  perhaps  allied  to  the  Arameans;  and 
many  Arameans  settled  at  various  times  in  Bab- 
ylonia and  were  to  some  extent  absorbed.  A 
daughter  State  of  Babylonia  was  Assyria,  founded 


l6  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

by  emigrants  from  Babylonia  before  2200  B.  C, 
whose  history  continued  to  the  fall  of  Nineveh  in 
606.  Assyria  had  less  of  foreign  admixture  than 
Babylonia,  at  least  until  the  later  years  of  the 
empire. 

The  Canaanite  nations,  concerning  which  we 
have  definite  information,  are  Phoenicia,  Edom, 
Moab,  Ammon,  Canaan,  and  the  Hebrews.  The 
earliest  of  these  to  reach  the  final  location  were 
the  Phoenicians.  The  first  definite  references  to 
these  are  in  the  Egyptian  records  at  about  the 
sixteenth  century,  but  their  coming  was  doubtless 
much  earlier  than  that.  The  other  nations  may 
have  come  to  the  West  at  about  the  same  time  as 
the  Hebrews,  or  perhaps  somewhat  earlier  than 
that.  The  Old  Testament  accounts  indicate  at 
least  that  these  nations  were  closely  connected 
with  the  Hebrews.  All  these  nations  of  Canaan 
and  vicinity  continued  to  occupy  positions  of 
considerable  prominence  down  to  the  later  pre- 
Christian  centuries. 

The  Arameans  grouped  themselves  less  defi- 
nitely into  nations  than  the  people  in  these  earlier 
movements.  They  were  for  the  most  part  tribes 
rather  than  nations,  and  preserved  their  nomadic 
habits  for  a  considerable  period  of  time,  in  most 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I7 

cases  for  centuries.  They  occupied  Mesopota- 
mia and,  later,  Syria,  together  with  portions  of 
Babylonia  and  Assyria.  When  they  gave  up  their 
nomadic  form  of  life  their  government  was 
loosely  organized.  The  city-State  was  a  specially 
prominent  feature  in  their  organization.  These 
city-States  were  found  in  Mesopotamia  and  Syria, 
the  strongest  being  in  Syria.  The  political  power 
of  the  Arameans  was  broken  by  the  Assyrian  con- 
quests, which  culminated  in  the  capture  of  Damas- 
cus by  Tiglathpileser  III,  about  732  B.  C.  They 
continued,  however,  to  be  the  prominent  element 
in  the  population  of  Syria  and  upper  Mesopotamia 
for  centuries  after  this  event. 

The  Arabs  retained  their  tribal  organization 
and  nomadic  form  of  life,  except  the  southern 
branch,  during  all  their  ancient  history,  and  even 
largely  to  the  present  day. 

Further  mention  should  also  be  made  of  the 
southern  division  of  the  Arabs.  Southern  Arabia 
being  fertile  and  adapted  to  agriculture,  a  settled 
mode  of  life  was  naturally  adopted.  Four  tribes 
or  nations  developed  here — the  Minaeans,  the  Sa- 
baeans,  the  people  of  Hadramaut,  and  the  people 
of  Kataban.  The  Minaeans  and  Sabaeans  estab- 
lished kingdoms  of  considerable  strength.     The 


1 8  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

history  of  this  region  is  known  but  very  imper- 
fectly as  yet;  the  present  tendency,  however, 
seems  to  be  toward  the  view  that  the  Minaean 
kingdom  extended  from  about  1250-600  B.  C, 
and  the  Sabsean  from  about  750-115  B.  C/  The 
kingdom  of  Aksum,  in  Abyssinia,  the  inhabitants 
of  which  spoke  the  language  commonly  called 
Ethiopic,  was  founded  by  emigrants  from  South- 
ern Arabia,  Sabaeans,  about  A.  D.  350. 

*  These    are    the    dates   given   by    Barton,    "  A    Sketch    of    Semitic 
Origins,"  p.    122. 


II 

SEMITIC    RELIGIOUS    LITERATURE 

THE  religious  literature  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  is  almost  entirely  of  Bab- 
ylonian origin;  when  the  particular  inscription 
found  was  actually  written  in  Assyria  it  is  usually 
a  copy  of  a  Babylonian  original.  A  large  part  of 
the  religious  documents  are  actually  from  the 
library  of  the  Assyrian  king  Ashurbanipal ;  but 
the  originals  were  undoubtedly  much  older,  al- 
though in  most  cases  it  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date 
even  approximately.  Evidently  they  were  of 
various  dates,  being  produced  at  different  times 
during  the  course  of  Babylonian  history;  but  the 
specifically  religious  documents  are  thought  to  be 
relatively  ancient.  It  is  impossible  to  fix  any  or- 
der in  the  production  of  the  different  kinds  of 
literature,  unless  by  conjecture.  Of  some  of  the 
documents  several  copies  have  been  found  with 
considerable  variations.  The  cities  prominent  as 
religious  centers  were  naturally  the  place  of  com- 
position of  most  of  these  religious  documents,  but 

19 


20  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

some  have  been  changed  to  adapt  them  to  the 
worship  of  a  different  god  from  the  one  in  whose 
honor  they  were  composed. 

Of  course  reHgious  elements  are  found  in  most 
of  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  literature;  and 
some  information  concerning  religious  matters  is 
derived  from  inscriptions  which  are  not  specific- 
ally religious.  In  the  narrow  sense,  however, 
it  is  probably  sufficient  to  divide  the  religious 
literature  into  the  following  five  classes:  (i), 
the  magical  texts  and  rituals;  (2),  the  hymns, 
prayers,  and  psalms;  (3),  omens;  (4),  cosmo- 
logical  texts;  and  (5),  epics  and  myths. ^  The 
magical  texts  consist  of  formulae  and  directions 
for  securing  protection  against  the  demons  and 
evil  spirits  who  injure  men.  There  are  several 
prominent  series  of  these,  one  called  prayers  of 
the  lifting  of  the  hand,  and  others  named  Maqlu, 
Shiirpu,  Lahartu,  Utukki  limnuti,  etc.  Maqlu  and 
Shiirpu  both  mean  burning,  as  a  symbolical  act  in 
the  incantations ;  Lahartu  is  the  name  of  a  special 
demon ;  while  Utukki  limnuti  means  evil  demons. 
These  magical  texts  were  for  use  in  the  temple  by 
the  priests,  and  thus  in  a  broad  sense  belonged  to 

^  See  especially  Jastrow,  "  Die  Religion  Babyloniens  iind  Assy- 
Hens,"  I.  p.  269;  and  Weber,  "Die  Literatw'  der  Babylonier  und 
Assyrer,"   pp.   40-198. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  21 

the  temple  ritual.  Other  texts,  however,  known 
more  specifically  as  ritual  texts,  are  those  which 
give  directions  to  the  priests  for  the  performance 
of  their  specific  ceremonies/  They  give  direc- 
tions for  three  classes  of  priests,  the  baru,  sooth- 
sayer ;  ashipu,  exorcist ;  and  zammaru,  singer. 

The  three  varieties  of  literature  classified  above 
as  hymns,  prayers,  and  psalms  are  not  sharply 
distinguished,  being  often  found  as  parts  of  the 
same  composition,  and  running  into  each  other. 
In  general,  however,  it  is  meant  that  a  hymn  is 
a  poem  in  praise  of  a  deity ;  a  prayer  is  a  petition 
for  help ;  and  a  psalm  is  an  expression  of  feeling, 
especially  of  the  various  needs  of  which  the 
writer  is  conscious.  Of  the  last,  some  are  known 
as  penitential  psalms,  confession  of  sin  being 
prominent.  Regularly  these  hymns,  prayers,  and 
psalms  are  a  part  of  the  temple  services,  although 
many  of  them  may  have  been  composed  originally 
as  the  expression  of  personal  feeling. 

The  omen  literature  is  very  abundant.  By 
omen  texts  are  meant  any  inscriptions  which  have 
to  do  with  the  communication  to  men  of  the  di- 
vine will  by  means  of  any  signs  or  indications. 

1  The  transliterations  and  translations  of  several  of  these  texts 
are  found  in  Zimmern,  "  Beitrdge  zur  Kenntnis  der  Babylonischen 
Religion," 


2Z  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Of  course  these  deal  in  general  with  the  future, 
the  ascertaining  of  what  is  to  take  place.  A 
separate  division  might  be  recognized  as  oracles, 
which  are,  however,  closely  connected  with  omens. 
In  the  oracles  specific  questions  were  addressed 
to  a  god,  and  the  god  responded,  either  through 
the  mouth  of  a  priest,  or  more  frequently  a 
priestess,  or  through  some  sign,  particularly 
through  the  condition  of  the  animal  sacrificed  in 
connection  with  the  ceremony,  the  special  seat  of 
this  oracular  response  being  the  liver.  The  most 
of  these  texts  thus  far  found  are  addressed  to  the 
sun-god  Shamash,  and  belong  to  the  time  of 
Esarhaddon  and  Ashurbanipal.  The  omen  texts 
derive  omens  from  earthly  and  heavenly  events. 
Among  these  earthly  events  are  any  occurrences 
that  are  at  all  unusual.  Here  belong  the  actions 
of  animals,  unusual  births  among  animals  and 
men,  dreams,  also  soothsaying  from  sacrifices,  and 
from  cups,  etc.  For  the  most  part  such  omens 
pertained  to  the  king  or  to  the  general  welfare. 
But  there  were  also  omens  from  individual  ex- 
periences, which  affected  the  individual  alone. 
The  heavenly  events  were  the  changes  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  which  were  of  course  continually 
giving  omens.     This  is  the  psuedo-science  of  as- 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  23 

trology,  which  was  fully  developed  and  of  great 
importance. 

The  cosmology  is  not  sharply  distinguished 
from  the  myths ;  since  there  is  much  that  is  myth- 
ical in  what  are  called  distinctly  the  cosmological 
tablets,  and  cosmological  elements  are  found  in 
some  tablets  that  are  more  especially  mythical. 
As  usually  classified,  however,  by  the  cosmolog- 
ical texts  those  tablets  are  meant  that  deal  some- 
what directly  with  the  creation.  The  principal 
one  of  these  is  what  is  usually  called  the  "  crea- 
tion epic,"  named  also  eniima  elish  from  its  first 
words.  This  consists  of  seven  tablets,  but  is  much 
mutilated.  The  most  of  the  text  at  hand  was 
found  in  the  library  of  Ashurbanipal,  but  frag- 
ments have  come  from  other  sources.  This  is 
an  account  of  the  creation  of  all  things — gods,  the 
earth,  animals,  and  men.  Marduk  is  the  promi- 
nent actor,  and  it  is  reasonably  supposed  that  the 
present  form  was  due  to  a  recension  in  the  Interest 
of  Marduk  of  Babylon  when  Babylon  became  the 
capital  of  Babylonia,  about  the  time  of  Hammu- 
rabi, 2250  B.  C.  In  that  case  Marduk  has  taken 
the  place  of  some  other  god,  or  gods,  as  the  prin- 
cipal actor.  It  is  not  the  creation  itself  that  is  the 
chief  purpose  of  the  writing,  but  the  account  of 


24  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  victory  of  Marduk  over  Tiamat,  the  goddess 
of  chaos.  Of  special  interest  is  a  small  fragment, 
K34454-Rm  396,  which  clearly  is  a  part  of  the 
fifth  tablet,  but  which  has  the  god  Ashur  in  place 
of  Marduk,  it  thus  being  a  later,  specifically  Assyr- 
ian, recension.  A  distinct  account  is  found  in  a 
new-Babylonian  tablet  from  Eridu,  82-5-22,  1048. 
This  forms  the  introduction  to  an  incantation  text, 
and  consists  of  about  forty  lines.  It  varies  con- 
siderably from  the  other  account,  especially  in 
the  fact  that  the  gods  are  already  in  existence. 
The  creator  is  Marduk,  here  apparently  the  ear- 
lier Marduk  of  Eridu.  Small  fragments  of  other 
accounts  have  also  been  found. 

The  epics  and  the  myths,  also,  are  not  sharply 
distinguished.  Usually,  however,  the  term  epic 
is  applied  especially  to  the  epic  of  Gilgamesh. 
The  most  of  this  comes  from  the  library  of  Ashur- 
banipal.  It  is  the  account  of  one  Gilgamesh, 
whose  name  is  written  with  the  determinative  for 
divine  beings,  but  who  in  his  acts  is  more  human 
than  divine.  The  narrative  is  for  the  most  part 
mythical,  with  possibly  a  slight  historical  basis. 
There  are  twelve  tablets  in  this  epic.  A  part  of 
it  is  the  narrative  of  Utnapishtim  giving  an  ac- 
count of  the   deluge,   usually  called   the   deluge 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  2^ 

tablet,  and  having  close  resemblances  to  the  Old 
Testament  account  of  the  deluge.  A  fragment  of 
another  recension  of  this  epic  with  marked  varia- 
tions has  also  been  found,  written  in  the  time  of 
Hammurabi;  and  there  are  various  fragments  of 
a  different  deluge  account,  in  which  the  hero  is 
not  Utnapishtim  but  Atrahasis. 

Among  the  myths  more  specifically  so  called  are 
the  Etana  myth,  which  is  an  account  of  a  mythical 
hero,  Etana;  the  myth  of  Ira — Ira  being  the 
plague  god;  the  myth  of  the  storm  god  Zu;  the 
myth  of  Adapa  the  Babylonian  Adam;  and  sev- 
eral others. 

The  Phoenician  literature  is  preserved  in  their 
own  inscriptions  and  in  some  quotations  in  Greek 
and  Latin  authors.  The  oldest  inscriptions  are 
three  very  brief  ones  found  on  fragments  of  bowls 
in  Cyprus,  and  considered  to  belong  to  the  eighth 
century  B.  C.^  Most  of  the  inscriptions  are  from 
the  fourth  century  and  later.  The  religious  ele- 
ment is  prominent  in  these  inscriptions.  Of  spe- 
cial importance,  religiously,  is  the  Marseilles 
tablet,"  of  about  the  fourth  century  B.  C,  found 
at  Marseilles  but  probably  inscribed  at  Carthage. 
This  deals  with  sacrifices.   Similar  are  two  shorter 

^CIS,  I,   5.  2  CIS,   I,   165. 


26  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

inscriptions,  one  of  which  is  badly  broken,  of 
about  the  same  date,  found  at  Carthage/ 

There  is  no  native  Hterature  known  of  the  Am- 
monites, Edomites,  and  Canaanites.  Some  infor- 
mation concerning  their  rehgious  ideas  is  derived 
from  notices  in  the  Old  Testament  and  state- 
ments in  the  literature  of  other  nations.  This  is 
supplemented  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanites  by  the 
results  of  recent  excavations  in  Palestine. 

The  native  Moabite  literature  consists  of  one  in- 
scription, the  Moabite  stone,  written  by  Mesha, 
king  of  Moab,  about  850  B.  C.  This  gives  some 
religious  information,  and  is  supplemented  from 
other  sources,  particularly  the  Old  Testament  no- 
tices. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  give  here  an  account  of 
the  Hebrew  literature  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

The  earliest  Aramaic  literature  consists  of  three 
inscriptions  found  at  Zenjirli,  in  Northern  Syria, 
dating  from  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  These  are 
historical  and  religious.  There  are  many  later 
Aramaic  inscriptions,  of  the  sixth  to  the  fourth 
century  and  later,  found  in  Arabia,  Egypt,  and 
elsewhere,  in  which  ordinarily  there  is  a  religious 

iCIS,  I,   166,  167. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  2/ 

element.  The  Christian  Aramaic,  i.  e.,  Syriac, 
literature  has  of  course  no  information  for  the 
present  purpose. 

The  Arabic  literature  of  the  time  of  Muham- 
mad and  later  is  of  course  too  late  to  be  included 
here.  Information  concerning  the  religion  before 
Muhammad  comes  largely  from  the  Nabatsean  in- 
scriptions, written  in  Aramaic  by  an  Arabic  peo- 
ple, with  dates  somewhat  before  and  after  the 
time  of  Christ,  and  from  traditions  given  by  later 
Arabic  writers.^ 

Many  inscriptions  from  Southern  Arabia  have 
been  published  in  recent  years,  although  a  ma- 
jority of  those  discovered  remain  as  yet  unpub- 
lished. These  are  of  very  uncertain  date,  although 
it  is  thought  that  some  of  them  are  as  early  as 
1000  B.  C.  The  inscriptions  published  are  largely 
votive  inscriptions.  These  afford  much  informa- 
tion concerning  the  gods,  and  some  details  con- 
cerning other  features  of  the  religion. 

1  See  especially  Wellhausen,   "  Reste  Arabischen  Heideniums,"  26. 
ed. 


Ill 

PRELIMINARY    PROBLEMS 

THERE  is  a  question  concerning  the  method 
of  investigation  and  presentation  which  is 
this :  How  largely  shall  chronological  matters  en- 
ter into  the  discussion?  In  some  specific  cases 
quite  largely,  more  often  practically  not  at  all. 
This  is,  in  the  first  place,  because  chronolog- 
ical data  are  comparatively  scanty.  In  the  Old 
Testament  the  chronological  development  of  the 
thought  is  somewhat  in  dispute,  as  is  well  known. 
But  in  the  other  Semitic  nations  the  case  is  very 
much  worse.  In  fact,  in  nearly  all  cases  among 
these  other  nations  it  is  impossible  to  trace  the 
chronological  development  of  the  thought  from 
any  but  the  slightest  indications.  The  difficulty  is 
well  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  most  of  the 
Babylonian  religious  literature  in  existence  is  only 
known  from  the  copies  in  the  library  of  Ashur- 
banipal;  that  the  composition  of  much  was  ear- 
lier than  this  is  unanimously  agreed,  but  how  early 

there  is  very  little,  indeed,  to  indicate.     Again, 
28 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  29 

for  such  a  study  as  this  it  is  often  unimportant 
to  trace  the  chronological  development  of  the 
thought  among  the  separate  nations.  Such  a 
matter  might  be  of  considerable  importance  in 
relation  to  the  specific  question  of  borrowing.  But 
otherwise  it  is  often  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of 
comparison  to  consider  the  sum  of  the  teaching  of 
each  religion,  or  the  result  of  the  development  in 
each  nation,  the  highest  point  attained.  In  gen- 
eral, this  highest  point  was  reached  in  all  these 
nations  at  periods  of  time  not  very  remote  from 
each  other. 

Another  problem  is  the  question  of  borrowing 
already  mentioned.     So  far  as  it  concerns  the 
question  of  borrowing  by  or  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, this  will  be  treated  somewhat  in  a  specific 
way  later.    How  far,  however,  was  there  borrow- 
ing by  the  different  Semitic  nations,  one  from 
another,  aside  from  the  Hebrews?    The  evidence 
is  not  at  hand  to  answer  this  question  very  fully. 
There  are  suggestions  of  such  borrowing:  e.  g., 
when  Shamash  appears  as  a  deity  among  the  Ara- 
means  and  elsewhere  it  looks  like  a  borrowing 
from  the  Babylonians.    Yet  most  of  the  deities  of 
each  nation  seem  clearly  to  have  had  an  inde- 
pendent development.     Their  names  largely  dif- 


30  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

fer,  and  their  characteristics  as  well.  Such  bor- 
rowing as  there  has  been,  therefore,  appears  to  be 
for  the  most  part  in  minor  matters.  Of  course  it 
is  quite  within  the  possibilities  that  there  is  bor- 
rowing that  cannot  easily  be  traced,  but  it  does 
not  seem  probable  that  there  is  a  sufficient  amount 
of  this  to  affect  materially  any  results  that  may  be 
attained. 

A  similar  question  is  how  much  borrowing 
there  may  have  been  by  Semites  from  non-Semitic 
peoples  with  whom  they  were  closely  associated. 
This,  it  would  seem,  might  be  expected  to  be  a 
more  difficult  matter  to  trace  than  that  which  has 
just  been  mentioned.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there 
seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  supposing  that 
much  borrowing  of  this  kind  has  obtained,  unless 
it  be  in  one  particular  case.  It  is  thought  by  many 
that  the  Babylonians  borrowed  quite  largely,  in 
religion  and  in  other  things,  from  the  Sumerians. 
Sayce,^  e.  g.^  thinks  that  many  elements  of  the 
Babylonian  religion,  especially  animism,  were 
borrowed  from  the  Sumerians.  The  whole  Su- 
merian  question  is  far  from  being  settled.  That 
the  Sumerians  were  a  reality  is  a  conclusion  that 
may  be  considered  generally  accepted.     But  that 

1  "  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,"  passim. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  3 1 

by  no  means  tells  the  whole  story.  The  extreme 
claims  for  Sumerian  influence  upon  the  Babylo- 
nians are  being  considerably  modified.  It  may 
be  regarded  as  reasonably  certain  that  the  Sume- 
rians  exerted  no  such  great  influence  as  is  claimed 
by  Sayce.  In  fact,  the  present  tendency  is  to  re- 
gard their  actual  influence  as  slight.  Such  mat- 
ters as  animism  are  found  to  some  extent  in  the 
other  Semitic  religions.  So  far  as  the  religion  is 
concerned  the  following  statements  of  Jastrow's 
may  be  considered  fairly  to  represent  the  views  of 
many :  "  It  is  generally  admitted  that  all  the 
literature  of  Babylonia,  including  the  oldest,  and 
even  that  written  in  the  *  ideographic '  style, 
whether  we  term  it '  Sumero-Akkadian  '  or  *  hier- 
atic,' is  the  work  of  the  Semitic  settlers  of  Meso- 
potamia." "  The  culture,  including  the  religion 
of  Babylonia,  is  likewise  a  Semitic  production, 
and  since  Assyria  received  its  culture  from  Bab- 
ylonia, the  same  remark  holds  good  for  entire 
Mesopotamia."  "  The  important  consideration 
for  our  purpose  is,  that  the  religious  conceptions 
and  practices  as  they  are  reflected  in  the  literary 
sources  now  at  our  command  are  distinctly  Bab- 
ylonian. With  this  we  may  rest  content,  and,  leav- 
ing theories  aside,  there  will  be  no  necessity  in 


32  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

an  exposition  of  the  religion  of  the  Babylonians 
and  Assyrians  to  differentiate  or  to  attempt  to 
differentiate  between  Semitic  and  so-called  non- 
Semitic  elements.  Local  conditions  and  the  long 
period  covered  by  the  development  and  history  of 
the  religion  in  question,  are  the  factors  that  suf- 
fice to  account  for  the  mixed  and  in  many  re- 
spects complicated  phenomena  which  this  re- 
ligion presents."  ^ 

^  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  23f. 


PART  II 
DIVINE  BEINGS 


THE  DIVINE    NATURE 

IN  theological  discussions  three  things  es- 
pecially are  included  in  treating  of  the  divine 
nature — personality,  unity,  and  spirituality.  Be- 
fore making  a  comparison  on  these  points,  a  brief 
statement  concerning  the  usual  Semitic  way  of 
regarding  divine  beings  may  be  desirable.  It  is 
perhaps  extreme  to  regard  animism  as  an  early 
phase  in  all  religions,  yet  it  has  been  well  estab- 
hshed  that  it  is  a  very  common  feature  of  primitive 
religions.  It  seems  reasonably  clear  that  this  was 
the  earliest  stage  that  can  be  traced  in  the  Semitic 
religions.  By  animism  is  meant  that  religious  be- 
lief which  ascribes  life  to  all  the  objects  and  forces 
of  nature,  including  not  only  those  of  earth 
and  air,  but  also  the  heavenly  bodies.  Each  ob- 
ject and  force  was  thus  the  seat  of  a  spirit ;  and, 
in  the  primitive  conception,  all  these  spirits  were 
equal  in  power.  Of  this  belief  there  are  traces  in 
several  of  the  Semitic  religions,  although  they  are 
most  marked  among  the  Babylonians.    But  modi- 

35 


36  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

fications  necessarily  arose.  A  difference  in  the 
power  of  these  spirits  over  human  affairs  was 
soon  beheved  in.  "  The  result  of  this  would  be 
to  give  a  preponderance  to  the  worship  of  the 
sun  and  moon  and  the  water,  and  of  such  natural 
phenomena  as  rain,  wind,  and  storms,  with  their 
accompaniment  of  thunder  and  lightning,  as 
against  the  countless  sprites  believed  to  be  lurk- 
ing everywhere."  ^  With  the  sun  and  moon  were 
also  associated  some  of  the  planets,  so  that  the 
religion  took  on  an  astral  character.  This  was 
characteristic  of  all  the  Semitic  religions,  ex- 
cept that  of  the  Old  Testament.  A  different  de- 
velopment was  the  feature  of  local  gods.  This 
resulted  especially  from  the  growth  of  civiliza- 
tion and  the  rise  of  cities.  Each  city  had  its  own 
god,  developed  it  may  be  from  a  spirit  of  that  re- 
gion, or  one  of  the  greater  gods  associated  in 
some  way  with  that  locality.  Local  gods  were 
thus  in  a  sense  a  development  of  the  more  general 
nature  worship,  although  the  connection  with 
nature  might  become  somewhat  obscured  as  a 
result  of  the  local  feature  of  the  worship.  Among 
the  western  Semites  particular  prominence  was 
given  to  the  course  of  the  year,  the  change  of  sea- 

^  Jastrow,  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  48. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  37 

sons,  etc.,  in  their  supposed  teaching  concerning 
the  gods.  There  are  doubtless,  also,  traces  of  to- 
temism  and  ancestor  worship  among  the  Semites. 
Totemism  should  probably  be  considered  a  de- 
velopment of  animism,  the  life  of  animals  being 
regarded  as  similar  to  that  of  gods  and  men.  An- 
cestor worship  was  not  directly  connected  with 
animism,  its  immediate  source  being  probably  the 
mystery  of  death.  How  far  the  representation  of 
the  gods  as  animals — which  is  common,  especially 
among  the  Babylonians — is  due  to  totemism  may 
be  questioned.  To  some  extent  this  feature  is 
doubtless  to  be  regarded  as  symbolical  rather  than 
pictorial,  the  animal  forms  being  employed  in  this 
connection  as  symbols  of  power.  An  anthropo- 
morphic tendency  was  doubtless  present  from  the 
first,  the  very  idea  of  animism  coming  from  at- 
tributing features  of  human  life  to  inanimate  ob- 
jects. In  the  close  connection  of  the  gods  with 
nature,  however,  this  idea  might  not  be  promi- 
nent. But  some  anthropomorphic  tendency  is 
inevitable  in  thinking  of  powers  not  definitely 
known.  Hence,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  anthropo- 
morphic side  was  prominent  in  the  Semitic  re- 
ligions, and  the  gods  were  represented  in  human 
form,  particularly  by  the  Babylonians  and  Assyr- 


38  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ians/  This  anthropomorphism  may  have  been 
aided  by  ancestor  worship,  but  is  doubtless  not 
wholly  due   to  that  influence. 

Personality.  Personality  is  prominent  in  all 
the  Semitic  religions.  The  thought  of  personality 
might  not  unnaturally  be  obscured  in  two  ways. 
Nature  gods  might  easily  retain  so  much  connec- 
tion with  nature  that  personality  was  obscured; 
they  were  little  more  than  forces  of  nature.  In 
all  the  religions  under  consideration,  except  that 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  gods,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  nature  gods  in  their  origin,  and  did  not  en- 
tirely lose  their  character  as  such.  Yet,  in  all, 
there  has  been  so  much  development  of  the  ideas 
that  the  personality  of  the  principal  gods  is  not 
sensibly  obscured.  The  connection  with  nature 
is  subordinate.  The  Babylonian  god  Shamash, 
e.  g.,  was  the  sun-god,  and  this  fact  was  apparently 
always  kept  conspicuously  in  mind  by  ordinarily 
using  the  determinative  for  divine  beings  when 
the  sun  itself  is  designated,  by  the  same  word. 
Yet  the  distinctive  character  of  Shamash  was  as 
the  god  of  justice,  in  which  conception  the  idea  of 


1  Nielsen,  "Die  altarabische  Mondreligion,"  p.  118,  claims  that 
in  the  South  Arabic  religion  no  god  was  worshiped  as  animal  or 
man.  There  are  representations  of  gods  in  these  forms,  however, 
which  he  considers  to  be  only  symbolical. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  39 

personality  was  prominent.  The  minor  gods, 
however,  as  well  as  the  spirits,  have  no  strongly 
marked  individuality,  so  that  in  these  the  idea  of 
personality  is  not  conspicuous.  The  other  way  in 
which  personality  might  be  obscured  is  by  a  pan- 
theistic tendency.  There  are  traces  of  this  among 
the  Semites,  but  only  as  a  result  of  philosophical 
speculation  concerning  divine  unity,  as  will  be 
noted.  The  popular  religion  does  not  tend  in  this 
direction.  Personality,  then,  is  nearly  as  promi- 
nent in  the  other  Semitic  religions  as  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  Egyptian  religion  tended  some- 
what more  strongly,  in  a  speculative  way,  toward 
pantheism,  but  here  also  personality  was  ordi- 
narily a  strongly  marked  feature. 

In  some  respects,  in  fact,  personality  was  over- 
emphasized in  the  Semitic  religions.  This  is,  of 
course,  natural  in  polytheism.  As  the  connection 
with  nature  diminished,  the  gods  were  thought 
of  as  unusual  men  in  their  characteristics.  Divine 
transcendence  is  not  marked  in  polytheism,  al- 
though there  were  clearer  traces  of  it  in  the 
Semitic  religions  than  in  most  others.  Not  only 
an  anthropomorphic  method  of  representation, 
but  anthropomorphic  conceptions  were  a  promi- 
nent characteristic  of  all  the  other  Semitic  re- 


40  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ligions,  except  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  This 
appears  prominently  in  the  Babylonian  mythology, 
where  human  traits  and  emotions  are  a  conspicu- 
ous feature  of  the  relations  of  the  gods  with  each 
other.  In  the  Old  Testament  there  is  much  an- 
thropomorphic representation,  but  the  later  teach- 
ing, at  any  rate,  cannot  be  considered  to  result 
from  anthropomorphic  conceptions.  Some  Old 
Testament  phrases  which  seem  to  present  marked 
anthropomorphic  conceptions  are  evidently  sur- 
vivals in  language  from  an  earlier  time,  e.  g.,  the 
not  uncommon  description  of  sacrifices  as  the 
"bread  of  God." 

Unity.  The  noticeable  feature  here  is  the  con- 
trast between  the  monotheism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching  and  the  polytheism  of  all  the  other 
Semitic  nations  and  Egypt.  The  oft-discussed 
question  whether  the  earlier  Old  Testament  teach- 
ing should  be  called  monotheism  or  monolatry  is 
unimportant  here,  for  no  one  doubts  that  most  of 
the  Old  Testament  doctrine,  including  all  the  later 
part,  can  be  called  by  no  other  name  than  mono- 
theism. Neither  is  the  question  of  the  origin 
either  of  the  name  or  worship  of  Yahweh  of 
any  particular  importance  in  this  connection;  for 
that  does  not  affect  the  prevailing  teaching  of  the 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  4 1 

Old  Testament.  In  all  the  other  religions  con- 
sidered polytheism  is  conspicuous.  The  origin  of 
the  Semitic  religions  has  already  been  indicated. 
In  harmony  with  that  is  the  fact  that  all  these 
religions,  except  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  are 
polytheistic,  and  in  some  the  gods  are  very  nu- 
merous. The  early  Babylonian  pantheon,  before 
Hammurabi,  contained  sixty-five  gods  and  god- 
desses known  by  name,  according  to  the  list  given 
by  Jastrow,^  aside  from  many  spirits.  The  Arabs 
had  also  many  gods,^  and  also  subordinate  spirits 
known  as  jinns.  The  gods  of  the  southern  Arabs 
so  far  found  are  comparatively  few  in  number. 
The  Phoenician  deities  were  about  fifty  in  all.^ 
Several  different  gods  are  mentioned  in  the  early 
Aramaic  inscriptions,  as  well  as  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment accounts  of  the  Arameans.  The  scantiness 
of  information  concerning  the  other  Semitic  na- 
tions— Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  and  Canaan — does 
not  allow  very  definite  statements,  but  it  is  clear 
that  they  were  polytheists. 

It  may  be  asked,  however,  whether  there  are 
not  approximations  to  monotheism  in  these  other 
religions.   In  several  ways,  somewhat  related,  they 

^"Die  Religion  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens,"  I,  p.  5 if. 

2  See  Wellhausen,  "  Reste  arabischen  'Heidentums,"  2d  ed.,  passim. 

»  Thatcher,  in  "  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  III,  p.  861. 


42  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

did  approach  monotheism:  these  can  be  traced 
chiefly  in  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  rehgions. 
One  way  is  through  gradations  among  the  gods. 
In  all  systems  of  polytheism  some  gods  are  more 
powerful  or  more  prominent  than  others.  This 
comes  about  chiefly  through  the  local  relations 
of  the  gods.  In  early  times  one  god  was  es- 
pecially the  god  of  a  city  or  district.  As  nations 
were  formed  by  the  union  of  cities  and  districts 
through  conquest  or  otherwise,  all  the  gods  were 
included  in  the  pantheon  of  the  whole  region. 
But  each  god  still  retained  his  special  seat;  and 
in  general  the  power  of  the  god  corresponded  to 
the  political  power  of  the  city  where  his  worship 
was  localized.  The  god  of  the  capital  city  was 
head  of  the  pantheon.  Thus  Marduk,  the  god  of 
Babylon,  was  the  head  of  the  later  Babylonian 
pantheon ;  Ashur,  the  god  of  the  city  Ashur,  was 
the  chief  god  of  Assyria.  The  supreme  god  was 
often  spoken  of  with  an  emphasis  on  his  power 
that  separates  him  from  the  remaining  gods. 
There  are  many  hymns  in  which  this  is  done  with 
Marduk.  Thus  it  is  even  said  of  him,  "  Thou 
bearest  the  might  of  Anu,  the  might  of  Bel,  the 
might  of  Ea,  dominion  and  majesty."  ^  This  does 

1  Jastrow,  "  Die  Religion  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens,"  I,  p.   513. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  43 

not  mean,  however,  that  Marduk  is  identified  with 
these  gods,  but  that  in  his  position  as  head  of  the 
pantheon  he  has  taken  their  attributes.  There 
is  to  be  noticed  here  a  monarchical  tendency,  cor- 
responding to  the  concentration  of  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  human  monarch.  Ashur  was  dis- 
tinctively an  Assyrian  god,  and  the  only  one  of 
the  Assyrian  pantheon  who  was  such.  If  his  wor- 
ship originated  in  Babylonia  it  was  of  slight  im- 
portance there.  It  thus  came  about  that  his  power 
in  Assyria  was  very  great.  In  the  worship  of 
Ashur,  however,  there  is  no  difference  in  kind 
from  the  other  gods,  but  only  in  degree.  The 
Assyrian  kings  mention  prominently  many  other 
gods  along  with  Ashur,  and  are  named  for  them. 
The  quotation  given  in  reference  to  Marduk 
suggests  a  more  general  matter,  viz.,  a  tend- 
ency to  syncretism,  or  identification  of  dijfferent 
gods  with  each  other.  This  is  seen  in  the  Babylo- 
nian religion,  e.  g.,  in  the  identification  of  Mar- 
duk with  Bel,  the  god  being  known  as  Bel-Mar- 
duk,  and  probably  in  the  identification  of  Sin  and 
Nannar,  Shamash  and  Babbar,  etc.  Partial  trans- 
ference of  the  same  kind  is  seen  in  the  passing  of 
attributes  from  one  deity  to  another.  Especially, 
as  in  the  case  above,  it  is  Marduk  the  supreme  god 


44  THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

who  absorbs  the  characteristics  of  others.  In  one 
text  he  seems  to  absorb  their  personaHties,  so  that 
it  is  said,  "  Ninib  is  Marduk  of  strength,  Nergal  is 
Marduk  of  battle,  Zamama  is  Marduk  of  slaugh- 
ter, Bel  is  Marduk  of  rule  and  order,  Nabu  is 
Marduk  of  business.  Sin  is  Marduk  as  illuminator 
of  night,  Shamash  is  Marduk  as  lord  of  all  which 
is  just,  Adad  is  Marduk  of  rain,  Sukh  is  Marduk 

of  the  army, Marduk ,  Shukamuna 

is  Marduk  of  clay  vessel."  ^  Similar  texts  give  to 
Ea,  Bel,  Ninib,  Nergal,  and  Adad  the  same  role 
as  Marduk  has  in  this  text.  This,  however,  is  not 
monotheism:  it  rather  means  that  these  great 
gods  are  representatives  of  Marduk  the  supreme 
deity,  or  of  other  gods. 

Another  way  in  which  an  approach  to  mono- 
theism arose  was  the  following:  A  worshiper 
whose  attention  was  concentrated  upon  one  god 
used  extravagant  language  in  reference  to  him, 
language  which  suggests  a  monotheistic  idea. 
Thus  of  Sin,  the  Babylonian  moon-god,  it  is  said, 
"  In  heaven  who  is  exalted  ?  Thou  alone  art 
exalted.  On  earth  who  is  exalted  ?  Thou  alone  art 
exalted."  ^     But   there   are   no   indications   that 


1  Published  by  Pinches,  "  Journal  of  the  Transactions  of  the  Vic- 
ria  Institute,"  XXXIII    (1896),  p.  8f. 

2  Jastrow,   "  The   Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  304. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  45 

such  worshipers  devoted  themselves  simply  to  one 
god;  these  expressions  are  merely  rhetorical  and 
devotional.  In  fact,  in  this  very  hymn  other  gods 
are  recognized,  in  the  statement,  "  O  Lord,  chief 
of  the  gods,  who  on  earth  and  in  heaven  alone  is 
exalted."  Of  Nabu,  again,  it  is  said,  in  an  in- 
scription on  a  statue  of  his  by  an  officer  of  Adad- 
nirari  III,  "  O  posterity,  trust  in  Nabu,  trust  not 
in  another  god."  ^  This  is  thought  to  show  a 
political  tendency,  rather  than  a  religious.  It  is 
noticeable  also  that  in  this  inscription  there  is 
recognition  of  Ea  and  Bel. 

The  Egyptian  religion  has  somewhat  different 
tendencies  toward  monotheism.  Reference  has 
already  been  made  to  a  tendency  toward  panthe- 
ism, which  is  such  more  truly  than  toward  mono- 
theism. Maspero  ^  quite  certainly  overstates  the 
case  when  he  says,  "  The  scribes,  the  priests,  the 
officials,  all  the  educated  world,  in  fact,  of  Egyp- 
tian society,  never  professed  that  gross  pagan- 
ism which  caused  Egypt  to  be  called  with  justice 
*  the  mother  of  superstitions.'  The  various  names 
and  innumerable  forms  attributed  by  the  multitude 


^K  B,  I,  p.  192;  Baentsch,  "  Altorientalischer  und  israelttischef 
Monotheistnus,"  p.   10. 

2  Quoted  by  Sayce,  "  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Bab- 
ylonia," p.  246. 


46  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

to  as  many  distinct  and  independent  divinities 
were  for  them  merely  names  and  forms  of  one 
and  the  same  being."  This  philosophical  specula- 
tion was  probably  of  much  less  importance  than 
has  often  been  supposed.  A  form  of  monotheism 
was  doubtless  introduced  into  Egypt  by  the  "  here- 
tic king  "  Amenhotep  IV,  in  the  worship  of  Aten, 
the  solar  disk.  There  is  much  that  is  uncertain 
about  this  movement.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  pantheistic  tendency  already 
noted.  It  is  questionable  to  what  an  extent  the 
movement  was  due  to  foreign  influence,  and 
whether  it  should  not  be  considered  a  political 
movement  rather  than  a  religious  one.  In  any 
case,  it  lasted  but  a  brief  time.  Some  other  mani- 
festations of  the  sun-god  seem  to  have  been 
worshiped  along  with  Aten,  so  that  perhaps  it 
should  not  be  called  in  the  full  sense  monotheism. 
This  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  definitely  establish- 
ing any  pronounced  tendency  in  the  real  Egyp- 
tian religion  toward  monotheism. 

It  seems  evident  from  what  has  been  said  that 
the  utmost  tendency  toward  monotheism  in  the 
Semitic  religions  meant  only  that  one  god  was 
often  regarded  more  highly  than  another,  some- 
times to  an  extreme  extent.    But  it  was  rarely,  if 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  47 

ever,  that  any  worshiped  one  god  exclusively,  and 
there  was  seldom  an  idea  that  the  worship  of 
one  god  was  hostile  to  that  of  another,  except  in 
the  case  of  a  god  of  a  hostile  land.  The  Egyptian 
tendency  was  no  stronger  than  the  Semitic,  ex- 
cept as  there  was  a  greater  inclination  toward 
pantheism. 

A  noticeable  tendency  has  recently  appeared 
to  speak  of  an  ancient  Oriental  monotheism  as 
existing  generally  among  the  Semitic  nations  and 
in  Egypt,  being  most  conspicuously  exemplified 
among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  Arabs  and 
Egyptians.^  This  is  generally  regarded  as  being 
in  its  nature  pantheistic — a  teaching  that  all  the 
gods  were  but  manifestations  of  one  being.  The 
evidence  for  this  view  has  for  the  most  part 
been  indicated  in  what  has  already  been  said.  A 
prominent  consideration,  however,  is  the  idea  that 
this  doctrine  was  of  an  esoteric  nature,  being  con- 
fined to  the  priests.  The  general  existence  of  such 
esoteric  doctrine,  however,  may  well  be  ques- 
tioned. The  view  depends  largely  upon  the  in- 
terpretation of  some  passages,  chiefly  in  the  Bab- 

1  On  this  see  especially  Jeremias,  "  Monotheistische  Stromungen 
innerhalb  der  babylonischen  Religion";  Baentsch,  "  Altorientalischer 
und  israelitischer  Monoiheismtis" ;  Nielsen,  "Die  altarabische  Mond- 
religion  und  die  mosaische  Ueberlieferung";  and  Jeremias,  "Das 
alte  Testament  im  Lichie  des  Alien  Orients,"  2d  ed. 


48  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

ylonian  inscriptions,  such  as  have  already  been 
cited.  These  seem  to  the  writer  to  suggest  a 
monarchical  or  syncretistic  rather  than  a  panthe- 
istic view  of  the  deities. 

Nielsen  ^  presents,  however,  a  view  that  mono- 
theism was  the  early  common-Semitic  belief,  and 
polytheism  a  later  development.  The  idea  of  La- 
grange ^  seems  to  be  quite  similar.  Nielsen  main- 
tains that  a  conception  of  god  as  one  and  an  eth- 
ical personality  is  found  in  the  early  religion  of 
South  Arabia,  and  was  a  primitive  common-Sem- 
itic idea.  "  Der  Gotteshegriif  ist  hier  hochst  ein- 
fach,  ist  in  keiner  Weise  versinnlicht  und  mit  ir- 
gend  etwas  Aeiisseren  in  Verbindung  gehracht; 
nichts  dentet  daraiif  hin,  dass  der  Wirkungskreis 
dieses  Go  ties  auf  ein  hestimmtes  Gestirn,  Ort  oder 
Volk  beschrdnkt  ist,  dass  wir  hier  einen  Astral- 
Lokal-  oder  Nationalgott  vor  uns  hahen;  es  ist 
die  Rede  von  '  Gott'  niemals  von  '  Gotternf  An- 
statt  diisserer  Bestimmungen  des  gottlichen  We- 
sens  Unden  sich  eine  Fillle  von  Prddikaten,  die  dem 
Gotteshegriife  ethische,  personliche  Eigenschaften 
beilegen.  Gott  ist  die  gerechte  Liebe,  gut,  gnddig, 
segnend  u.  s.  w.,  ein  personlicher  Gott,  denn  er 

* "  Die  altarabische   Mondreligion  und   die  mosaische   Ueberliefer- 
ung,"  especially  p.   lof. 

*  Etudes  sur  les  Religions  Semitiques,"  pp.  70-83. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  49 

weisSj  erinnert,  erhorf  u.  s.  w.,  ein  gerechter  Gott, 
der  seine  Gehote  den  Menschen  erteilt,  aber  vor 
alien  Dingen  ein  liehender  Gott,  der  mit  den 
Menschen  in  Bund  tritt  und  ihnen  den  Frieden 
verlieht/'  ^ 

This  view,  however,  does  not  seem  to  be  justi- 
fied by  the  evidence.  There  are  ethical  traits 
here,  to  be  sure,  but  the  facts  presented  do  not 
warrant  the  conclusion  that  here  is  a  god  who 
approaches  ethical  completeness.  The  evidence 
of  the  author  comes  primarily  from  South  Ara- 
bian proper  names,  which  have  such  forms  as  wad- 
dada-ihi,  god  loves;  tsadaq-ilu,  god  is  righteous; 
ihi-magir,  god  is  kind,  etc.  These  proper  names 
are  found  in  inscriptions,  but  are  believed  by 
Nielsen  to  show  an  earlier  stage  of  the  religion 
than  the  inscriptions  themselves.  These  names 
are  supplemented  by  similar  names  from  Bab- 
ylonian inscriptions,  from  the  period  of  Hammu- 
rabi and  earlier.  God  here,  it  is  said  by  Nielsen, 
is  one,  as  indicated  by  the  use  simply  of  the  word 
ilu,  and  fully  ethical,  as  indicated  by  these  char- 
acteristics of  his  which  are  stated.  But  the  un- 
confirmed evidence  of  the  proper  names  is  an  un- 

* "  Die  altarahische  Mondreligion  und  die  mosaische  Ueberliefer- 
iing,"  p.  I  of. 


50  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT 

certain  reliance  for  so  general  a  conclusion.  In 
fact,  the  inscriptions  of  South  Arabia  testify  to  at 
least  three  or  four  astral  deities,  of  a  nature  simi- 
lar to  the  corresponding  gods  in  the  Babylonian 
pantheon.  It  seems  highly  probable,  therefore, 
that  there  was  always  a  plurality  of  gods  in  the 
conception  of  the  Southern  Arabs,  and  that  they 
were  nature  gods,  and  only  imperfectly  ethical. 

The  argument  for  monotheism  from  the  use  of 
ilu  is  very  precarious.  Such  a  usage  might  readily 
be  found  under  polytheism,  for  various  reasons. 
One  reason  might  be  that  the  god  in  mind  was 
the  special  god  of  the  locality,  not  called  by  name 
because  well  known ;  another,  that  the  names  were 
familiar  ones,  and  used  in  an  abbreviated  or  gen- 
eralized form,  as  was  often  the  case. 

Monotheism  is  by  no  means  so  exclusively  the 
feature  which  gives  superiority  to  a  religion  as  is 
sometimes  assumed.  Monotheism  alone  does  not 
assure  a  high  standard,  as  is  evidenced  by  Mu- 
hammadanism.  Yet  it  is  a  necessary  condition  of 
high  development.  The  ethical  character  of  re- 
ligion is  inevitably  imperfect  under  polytheism: 
the  gods  in  a  polytheistic  system  are  for  the  most 
part  non-ethical  or  unethical  in  their  character, 
as  will  be  seen  more  fully  later. 


AMONG  THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  5 1 

Spirituality.  Spirituality  is  a  marked  char- 
acteristic of  the  Old  Testament  teaching:  it  is 
largely  absent  from  the  religions  of  the  other 
Semitic  nations  and  Egypt.  Some  have  ques- 
tioned, however,  how  fully  the  spirituality  of 
Yahweh  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  this  conception  was  one 
which  the  Hebrews  had  great  difficulty  in  grasp- 
ing. The  popular  religion  of  every  period  before 
the  exile  had  only  an  imperfect  idea  of  it.  Yet 
the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  made  it  promi- 
nent from  the  first.  The  second  commandment, 
which  must  in  any  case  be  relatively  early,  if  it 
does  not  directly  teach  the  spirituality  of  God, 
strongly  implies  it.  This  feature  is  always  em- 
phasized as  well  in  the  teachings  of  the  prophets. 

Several  things  may  seem  to  teach  limitations 
of  the  spirituality  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament. 
One  is  the  emphasis  upon  personality,  with  the 
resulting  anthropomorphisms.  It  has  perhaps 
already  been  sufficiently  indicated  under  person- 
ality that  this  does  not  denote  a  real  limitation. 
Another  thing  is  the  connection  of  Yahweh 
with  nature.  It  is  held  by  many  that  the  con- 
ception of  Yahweh  in  the  early  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  includes  many  traits  of  a  nature  god. 


52  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

But,  in  any  case,  it  is  not  claimed  that  this  appears 
in  the  teaching  of  the  later  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Further,  these  descriptions  of  natural  phe- 
nomena in  connection  with  the  theophanies  of 
Yahweh  are  of  such  variety  that  they  clearly  do 
not  indicate  that  he  is  thought  of  as  a  nature  god. 
Another  feature  is  the  externality  of  the  worship. 
This  has  two  phases  which  need  consideration. 
One  is  that  the  worship  is  localized,  at  first  to 
some  extent  in  connection  with  the  ark,  and  after- 
ward at  the  temple.  This  no  doubt  made  it  easy 
to  think  of  the  center  of  worship  as  the  abode  of 
Yahweh.  But  such  was  not  the  real  meaning  of 
this  feature.  Rather,  the  centralization  of  wor- 
ship indicates,  prominently  at  least,  an  emphasis 
upon  the  religious  unity  of  the  nation.  It  is 
clearly  taught  that  the  temple  is  not  the  real  abode 
of  Yahweh.  That  abode  is  often  spoken  of  as 
heaven,  but  even  that  is  considered  as  unable  to 
contain  him,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  prayer  of 
Solomon  (i  Kings  8  :  27),  ''But  will  God  in 
very  deed  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  behold,  heaven  and 
the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  thee;  how 
much  less  this  house  that  I  have  builded !  "  The 
other  phase  is  the  prominence  of  ritual,  external 
rites,  in  the  worship.    These  rites  may  be  of  such 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  53 

a  nature  as  to  imply  a  belief  in  God  as  material, 
or  they  may  not.  Certain  features  in  connection 
with  sacrifices  might  seem  to  look  rather  definitely 
in  this  direction.  The  origin  of  Semitic  sacrifices, 
as  will  be  seen  later,  is  doubtless  to  be  sought  in 
a  physical  conception  of  God.  Some  phrases  used 
also  imply  that  thought,  as  the  description  of  the 
sacrifices  as  wnb^  onS,  bread  of  God.  But  this 
early  thought  has  doubtless  disappeared,  at  least 
largely,  in  the  Old  Testament  teaching  concerning 
sacrifices,  although  not  in  the  popular  conception. 
The  culmination  of  the  teaching  concerning  God, 
further,  as  will  be  indicated  later,  is  not  found 
in  the  sacrifices,  but  in  the  prophetical  writings. 

There  is  no  real  conception  of  spirituality  in  the 
other  Semitic  religions.  In  origin  the  gods  are 
material,  being  connected  with  the  objects  of 
nature.  And  this  connection  is  never  entirely  lost 
from  view.  In  their  later  development,  however, 
as  has  already  been  said,  emphasis  was  placed 
upon  the  idea  of  personality.  Then  the  gods  were 
regarded  as  men  of  superior  power;  and  they 
were  no  more  regarded  as  pure  spirit  than  man  is. 
Again,  the  representations  of  the  gods  show  the 
same  state  of  things.  In  all  these  other  Semitic 
religions  the  gods  were  regularly  represented  by 


54  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

images.  Of  course  it  is  always  a  possibility  that  in 
some  minds  an  image  may  have  been  regarded  in 
a  purely  symbolical  way,  and  the  god  not  identi- 
fied with  the  image.  The  common  use  of  images, 
however,  would  show  that  this  was  not  the  pre- 
vailing view.  The  treatment  of  the  images  shows, 
moreover,  that  in  general  the  god  was  thoroughly 
identified  with  the  image.  By  the  Assyrians 
and  Babylonians,  e.  g.,  the  images  of  conquered 
cities  or  countries,  whether  related  peoples  or  not, 
were  carried  off  to  the  capital  of  the  conquer- 
or; and  later  they  were  sometimes  rescued  and 
returned  to  their  original  locations.  The  forbid- 
ding of  images  in  the  second  commandment  in 
the  Old  Testament  brings  the  Old  Testament  into 
sharp  contrast  at  this  point  with  the  Semitic  cus- 
toms and  thought  universal  elsewhere. 

In  Egypt  practically  the  same  condition  is 
found  as  in  the  general  Semitic  thought.  Here 
also  the  gods  were  thought  of  in  general  as  men, 
and  were  represented  by  images  and  also  by 
animals. 

The  later  conceptions  in  all  these  nations,  so 
far  as  known,  tended  somewhat  toward  the  idea 
of  spirituality,  but  failed  to  attain  to  it.  The  gross- 
ness  of  the  early  materialistic  conceptions  was 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  55 

somewhat  refined,  but  not  entirely  lost.  The 
broadening  of  political  divisions  effected  a  similar 
condition  in  the  sphere  of  religion;  the  god  who 
was  early  limited  to  a  small  territory  became  iden- 
tified with  a  much  larger  region.  The  conquering 
gods,  such  as  Ashur,  were  considered  to  conquer 
the  territory  of  other  gods.  Yet  the  power  of  the 
gods  never  went  far  beyond  the  country  subject 
to  them,  the  conception  of  any  god  as  having  do- 
minion over  the  world  being  ordinarily  unattain- 
able under  polytheism.  And  even  that  conception 
would  not  necessarily  be  a  conception  of  a  spirit- 
ual being,  although  it  would  approach  to  it. 

The  pantheistic  speculation  of  the  Egyptians 
looks  in  the  direction  of  spirituality.  But  this, 
as  has  already  been  remarked,  probably  had  but 
little  real  effect  upon  the  religion  as  a  whole; 
neither  was  it  clearly  a  spiritual  conception. 

The  monarchical  form  of  polytheism,  already 
referred  to,  marks  a  culmination  in  the  exaltation 
of  the  power  of  a  single  god,  and  a  consequent 
diminution  of  the  local  limitations.  Yet  some  idea 
of  these  limitations  remained. 

A  certain  transcendental  element  in  the  Bab- 
ylonian religion  comes  from  the  fact  that,  in  the 
later  thought,  the  proper  home  of  the  gods  was 


56  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

in  heaven,  their  earthly  abodes  being  simply  the 
counterpart  of  their  heavenly  residences.  This 
marks  a  contrast  with  humanity,  and  affords  a 
starting-point  for  the  idea  of  spirituality,  which, 
however,  remains  no  more  than  a  slight  tendency. 


II 

METAPHYSICAL   ATTRIBUTES 

AS  usually  stated  in  modern  phraseology  the 
natural  or  metaphysical  attributes  of  God 
are  eternity,  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  and  om- 
niscience.    A  statement  as  definitely  theological 
as  this  goes  beyond  the  treatment  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.    Yet  substantially  the  modern  idea  is 
found  there.    The  teaching  is  that  Yahweh  is  in- 
definitely superior  to  ordinary  human  limitation  in 
regard  to  time,  power,  space,  and  knowledge.    In 
particular  this  is  strongly  affirmed  in  the  prophets. 
Modern  language  speaks  of  God  as  infinite.    The 
Old  Testament   writers  meant  very  nearly  the 
same  when  they  spoke,  e.  g.,  of  the  majesty  of 
God.    The  difference  is  that  while  the  term  infinite 
is  theoretical,  without  limitations,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment   thought    is    usually    practical,    indefinitely 
transcending  human  limitations.     Yet  the  differ- 
ence is  slight,  and  at  times  the  Old  Testament 
statements  contain  strong  theoretical  affirmations. 
The  religions  of  the  other  Semitic  nations  show 

57 


58  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

contrast  with  the  Old  Testament  far  more  than 
resemblance  at  this  point;  the  gods  only  imper- 
fectly transcend  human  limitations,  as  will  be 
seen  from  a  more  detailed  consideration. 

Eternity.  Some  of  the  strongest  affirmations 
on  this  point  in  the  Old  Testament  are  found  in 
the  following  passages,  Exod.  15  :  i8;  Ps.  lo  : 
16;  103  :  17;  Isa.  51  :  6;  41  :  4;  43  •  10;  44  - 
6;  48  :  12.  In  accordance  with  the  practical  na- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament  these  passages  speak 
more  especially  of  limitless  duration  in  the  future, 
yet  they  speak  of  the  past  as  well.  In  some  cases 
the  words  used  express  only  indefinite  duration,  in 
others  it  is  clearly  limitless.  The  many  passages 
in  which  God  is  spoken  of  as  creator  of  all  things 
look  in  the  same  direction,  i,  e.,  they  indicate  in- 
definite past  duration,  although  not  necessarily 
eternal. 

Polytheism  brings  time  limitation  in  two  ways : 
it  limits  the  gods  in  their  past  history  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  one  is  descended  from  another; 
and  it  limits  them  to  a  certain  extent  in  the  same 
way  by  their  connection  with  created  material 
objects,  especially  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  The 
first  tendency  would  of  course  leave  it  possible 
that  the  earliest  god  should  be  thought  of  as  ex- 


AMONG  THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  59 

isting  from  limitless  time  in  the  past.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  however,  there  is  no  real  evidence  of 
such  a  conception.  Several  Babylonian  gods  are 
spoken  of  in  different  accounts  as  creators  of 
everything;  but  this  is  a  general,  poetic  phrase, 
conveying  no  very  specific  meaning.  In  the  real 
Babylonian  system  the  earliest  triad  as  ordinarily 
reckoned,  all  standing  on  an  equality  in  point  of 
origin,  was  Anu,  Bel,  and  Ea.  Anu  was  god  of 
heaven,  Bel  of  earth,  and  Ea  of  water.  But  back 
of  these  were  two — a  male  and  female — ^An-shar 
and  Ki-shar,  shadowy  beings,  seldom  referred  to, 
mere  general  personifications  of  heaven  and  earth. 
Hence,  it  is  evident  that  among  the  Babylonians 
there  is  no  definite  idea  of  past  eternal  existence  of 
any  god.  Among  the  other  Semitic  nations  there 
is  hardly  material  enough  to  form  the  basis  of  a 
definite  statement,  but  apparently  the  facts  are 
somewhat  similar.  It  is  evident  that  in  all  the 
connection  of  the  deities  with  natural  objects  is 
prominent.  The  Egyptian  representation  of  the 
age  of  the  gods  is  very  confused  and  inconsistent. 
But  as  the  prominent  worship  is  solar,  that  consti- 
tutes a  limitation. 

In  general  it  is  evident  that  so  far  as  concerns 
the  future  the  gods  were  thought  of  as  living  in- 


6o  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

definitely.  It  is  not  a  point  which  is  directly 
touched  upon,  however,  so  much  as  it  is  assumed. 
But  the  material  connection  here  also  interposes 
a  limit  to  theoretical  eternity,  although  not  to 
indefinite  duration,  practically  considered.  The 
gods  were  like  men  in  many  ways,  and  they 
fought  with  each  other,  but  ordinarily  did  not 
destroy  each  other:  they  were  only  occasionally 
represented  as  subject  to  death.  The  connection 
with  material  objects  doubtless  helped  to  convey 
the  idea  of  unlikeness  to  men  at  this  point. 

Omnipotence.  The  Old  Testament  expresses 
very  strongly  the  omnipotence  of  God.  Usually, 
of  course,  it  is  considered  in  certain  practical  rela- 
tions. Yet  there  are  many  assertions  that  the 
power  of  God  is  indefinitely  above  any  human 
power,  and  in  marked  contrast  with  the  power- 
lessness  of  the  gods  of  the  nations.  The  power 
of  God  is  contemplated  usually  from  two  asso- 
ciated points  of  view:  as  exhibited  in  creation, 
and  as  shown  in  his  continual  control  over  na- 
ture, individuals,  and  nations.  There  is  a  wide 
sweep  of  his  power,  no  nation  of  the  earth,  no 
part  of  the  universe  even,  being  outside  of  its 
scope.  These  teachings  are  found  especially  in 
such  passages  as  Isa.  40;  43  :  13;  45  :  9;  Amos 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS 


6l 


9:7;  Jer.  18.  How  much  limitation  of  this  con- 
ception may  be  found  in  the  early  part  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  unimportant,  inasmuch  as  the  teach- 
ing of  these  passages  represents  at  any  rate  the 
height  which  is  reached  and  maintained  by  the 
Old  Testament. 

In  all  the  other  Semitic  religions  it  is  evident 
that  much  emphasis  was  placed  upon  the  power  of 
the  gods :  they  were  regarded  as  far  superior  to 
men.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  early  com- 
mon-Semitic word  for  god  was  the  one  found  hi 
the  Hebrew,  ^«,  the  same  word  being  in  use  in 
nearly  or  quite  all  the  other  Semitic  languages/ 
The  derivation,  and  hence  the  original  signifi- 
cance, of  this  word  are  much  disputed.  It  seems 
probable  to  the  writer,  however,  that  this  original 
significance  was  to  be  strong.  If  so,  the  promi- 
nent early  idea  concerning  the  gods  was  that  of 
strength. 

It  is  also  evident,  however,  that  the  power  of 
the  gods  falls  far  short  of  omnipotence.  There 
are  limitations  to  divine  power,  limitations  which 
vary  greatly  in  their  force  at  different  points,  yet 
which  are  never  passed.    Polytheism  itself  consti- 

iSee  especially  Lagrange,  "  ttudes  sur  les  Religions  Setnitiques," 
pp.  70-83. 


62  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

tutes  an  important  limitation.  The  power  of  one 
god  is  greatly  limited  by  that  of  others,  in  a  poly- 
theistic system.  This  appears,  e.  g.,  in  the  Baby- 
lonian mythology,  where  the  gods  quarrel  among 
themselves  and  one  thwarts  the  plans  of  others. 
Of  course  the  supreme  god  is  superior  chiefly  in 
power.  But  that  power  does  not  reach  omnipo- 
tence. 

Closely  connected  with  this  is  another  idea, 
which  constitutes  a  more  definite  limitation.  This 
was  the  idea  of  local  gods.  Originally  the  power 
of  a  god  was  conceived  as  confined  to  the  city 
where  he  dwelt  and  the  region  immediately  about. 
This  continued  to  be  the  conception  to  a  certain 
extent  in  all  these  religions.  Yet  in  process  of 
time,  especially  as  a  result  of  the  unification  of 
national  life,  this  conception  lost  somewhat  its 
definite  character,  although  it  did  not  entirely 
disappear.  There  remained  in  full  force,  at  any 
rate,  the  national  limitation.  The  power  of  a  god 
was  ordinarily  limited  to  the  territory  of  his  own 
nation.  Babylonia  and  Assyria  religiously  were 
in  most  respects  one  nation.  Hence,  the  power  of 
a  Babylonian  god  might  extend  over  Babylonia 
and  Assyria,  but  would  not  necessarily  do  so ;  and 
would  ordinarily  be  limited  to  that  region. 


AMONG  THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  63 

It  is  doubtless  a  result  of  the  same  general  idea 
that  the  gods  in  general  in  the  Babylonian  re- 
ligion have  no  relation  with  the  underworld, 
Aralu.  This  is  conceived  of  as  a  place,  but  one 
with  which  the  ordinary  gods  have  nothing  to  do. 
It  has  a  god  and  goddess  of  its  own,  commonly 
known  as  Nergal  and  AUatu.  The  teachings  on 
this  matter  will  be  further  discussed  at  a  later 
point. 

Another  limitation  in  power  is  also  conspicuous 
— limitation  in  the  sphere  of  activity  of  a  particu- 
lar god.  As  the  idea  of  local  gods  became  less 
distinct,  this  other  limitation  increased  in  force. 
In  the  early  conception  a  god  had  control  of  only 
a  small  region,  yet  within  that  region  the  sphere 
of  his  activity  was  not  expressly  limited.  Later, 
inasmuch  as  many  gods  had  power  over  the  same 
region,  or  even  over  a  whole  nation,  it  was  inevi- 
table that  conflict  of  authority  should  be  avoided 
to  a  certain  extent  by  limiting  the  sphere  of  the 
activity  of  each  one,  although  of  course  this  was 
done  but  imperfectly.  Shamash,  e.  g.,  in  the 
Babylonian  system,  was  the  god  of  justice,  with 
which  none  of  the  other  gods  had  much  to  do; 
Nabu  was  the  god  of  literature,  etc.  So  fully  was 
this  felt  that  when  literary  activity  became  promi- 


64  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

nent  in  Assyria,  in  the  reign  of  Shalmaneser  II 
and  his  successors,  the  worship  of  Nabu  received 
a  new  impetus,  so  that  Adadnirari  III  built  him  a 
temple  in  Kalkhi ;  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
in  general  the  power  of  Ashur,  the  great  god  of 
Assyria,  had  less  limitation,  perhaps,  than  that  of 
any  other  Semitic  god. 

The  Babylonian  incantation  literature  shows 
limitations  in  the  power  of  the  gods.  An  especially 
powerful  god  is  appealed  to,  with  the  belief  that 
his  power  will  prevail  over  that  of  another  god, 
who  is  indifferent  or  hostile.  This  literature  also 
indicates  that  the  god  always  obeyed,  necessarily, 
the  incantation  if  it  was  exactly  right,  i.  c,  there 
were  formulae  which  surely  had  power  over  the 
god.  This  literature  is  not  the  highest  expres- 
sion of  the  Babylonian  religion ;  still  it  constitutes 
an  important  part  of  it. 

In  some  ways  individual  limitations,  before 
mentioned,  were  diminished  in  particular  cases, 
especially  by  war.  Church  and  State  were  in- 
separably connected  in  these  religions :  the  divine 
power  varied  with  the  power  of  the  king.  Con- 
quest added  to  the  power  of  the  special  god  of  the 
victorious  king ;  the  conquered  land  became  a  part 
of  his  territory ;  the  gods  as  well  were  conquered 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  65 

and  became  subject  to  him.  But  this  increase  of 
power  itself  emphasizes  its  hmitation.  It  is  not 
world-wide,  it  is  a  power  which  actually  embraces 
only  the  lands  included  in  the  empire.  State- 
ments that  go  beyond  this  are  general  and  rhetor- 
ical, parallel  to  the  rhetorical  phrases  in  which  the 
king  emphasizes  his  own  power. 

Probably  Ashur  had  less  local  limitation  than 
any  other  Semitic  deity.  He  was  the  head  of  the 
Assyrian  pantheon,  as  Marduk  of  the  Babylonian. 
But  the  worship  of  Marduk  was  closely  connected 
with  his  city,  Babylon;  and  he  is  usually  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  several  other  Babylo- 
nian gods  who  approach  him  quite  closely  in 
prominence,  especially  Nabu.  Ashur,  as  well, 
was  originally  the  god  of  the  city  Ashur ;  but  his 
worship  is  never  connected  in  any  distinctly  local 
sense  with  that  city.  Rather,  as  the  country  re- 
ceives his  name  along  with  the  city,  he  becomes 
at  an  early  date  distinctly  the  national  god  rather 
than  a  city  god.  The  uncertainty  concerning  the 
meaning  and  origin  of  the  name  Ashur  does  not 
materially  affect  the  facts  as  stated.  As  a  national 
god  a  new  temple  was  built  for  him  whenever  the 
capital  was  moved,  from  Ashur  to  Kalkhi,  and 
from  Kalkhi  to  Nineveh;  but  the  worship  was 


66  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

Still  continued  in  the  others.  He  was  distinctly 
the  national  god  of  Assyria,  not  of  Babylonian 
origin,  unless  remotely.  He  was  especially  a  war- 
like god,  and  as  such  his  most  distinctive  repre- 
sentation was  by  a  warlike  standard  carried  from 
place  to  place.  As  the  national  warlike  god  he 
was  regarded  in  a  more  exclusive  way  than  any 
Babylonian  god:  no  other  god  whom  the  Assyr- 
ians worshiped  could  approach  him  in  power. 
Yet  the  Assyrian  kings  ordinarily  mentioned  other 
gods  at  the  same  time  with  him  in  their  inscrip- 
tions. Adadnirari  III  placed  special  emphasis 
upon  the  worship  of  Nabu,  and  Shamash  is  men- 
tioned prominently  along  with  Ashur,  e,  g.,  by 
Shalmaneser  and  Tiglathpileser  HI.  Ashur  has 
no  consort  in  any  real  sense,  which  gives  a  sug- 
gestion of  exclusiveness.  Yet  this  idea  can  easily 
be  carried  too  far,  especially  in  view  of  the  facts 
previously  mentioned.  The  facts  do  not  warrant 
such  extreme  statements  as  are  made  by  Sayce,^ 
"  Assur  consequently  differs  from  the  Babylonian 
gods,  not  only  in  the  less  narrowly  local  character 
that  belongs  to  him,  but  also  in  his  solitary  nature. 
.  .  He  is  like  the  king  of  Assyria  himself,  brook- 
ing no  rival,  allowing  neither  wife  nor  son  to 

*  "  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,"  p.   37if. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  6y 

share  in  the  honors  which  he  claims  for  himself 
alone.  He  is  essentially  a  jealous  god,  and  as 
such  sends  forth  his  Assyrian  adorers  to  destroy 
his  unbelieving  foes.  .  .  We  can,  in  fact,  trace 
in  him  all  the  lineaments  upon  which,  under  other 
conditions,  there  might  have  been  built  up  as  pure 
a  faith  as  that  of  the  God  of  Israel." 

Omnipresence.  In  the  Old  Testament  this  is 
emphatically  taught  in  relation  to  Yahweh.  Even 
in  the  earlier  portions  there  can  have  been  but 
little  limitation  on  this  point.  It  is  the  same  God 
who  is  with  Abraham  in  Ur,  and  Palestine,  and 
with  his  descendants  in  Egypt,  and  later  in  Pales- 
tine. The  freedom  of  Yahweh  from  the  limita- 
tions of  space  is  found  with  emphasis  in  such  pas- 
sages as  Gen.  28  :  15;  Amos  9:2-4;  Jer.  23  : 
23f;  Isa.  43  :  2;  Ps.  139  :  5-10.  The  last  pas- 
sage, and  others  show  Yahweh  in  complete  con- 
trol of  Sheol,  a  control  which  in  some  of  the  ear- 
liar  passages  appears  less  definitely. 

The  general  conception  in  the  other  religions 
need  be  touched  only  briefly.  Substantially  it  has 
been  covered  in  what  has  been  said  already  in 
reference  to  omnipotence.  One  of  the  limitations 
in  power  constitutes,  of  course,  the  chief  limitation 
in  reference  to  space,  the  conception  of  local  gods. 


68  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

The  conception  was  at  most  a  national  one:  the 
presence  of  the  god  on  earth  does  not  extend  be- 
yond the  land  in  which  he  dwells,  except  as  con- 
quest increases  the  dominion.  The  god  goes  no 
farther  than  the  king  does. 

Omniscience.  This  also  is  strongly  asserted  in 
reference  to  Yahweh  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
associated  closely  with  the  other  natural  attri- 
butes, especially  with  omnipresence,  in  the  Old 
Testament  treatment.  Many  of  the  passages 
given  in  reference  to  omnipresence  teach  this  as 
well.  It  is  emphasized  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
the  knowledge  of  Yahweh  embraces  the  universe. 
It  also  includes  that  wiiich  is  hidden  from  men, 
especially  the  inner  thoughts  and  purposes  of  in- 
dividuals. Particularly  in  the  prophets  Yahweh's 
knowledge  of  the  future  is  emphasized;  this  is 
known  to  him  as  well  as  the  present.  He  is  there- 
fore able  to  make  his  plans  with  reference  to  the 
future,  and  has  the  power  to  carry  out  these  plans. 

In  the  other  religions  the  limitations  already 
stated  apply  here  as  well.  All  the  limitations  pre- 
viously mentioned  imply  or  demand  limitation  of 
knowledge  also.  The  Old  Testament  concep- 
tion, just  mentioned,  of  Yahweh's  knowledge  of 
the  future  course  of  events  in  the  world  is  with- 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  69 

out  parallel  in  the  other  religions.  The  Old  Tes- 
tament prophecy  which  is  based  upon  this  con- 
ception thus  stands  by  itself  without  a  parallel  in 
the  other  Semitic  religions. 

The  Babylonian  penitential  psalms  indicate  tnat 
the  gods  were  considered  to  have  an  extensive 
knowledge  of  their  worshipers.  They  knew  es- 
pecially their  failures  and  sins,  some  of  which 
were  unknown  to  the  individuals  themselves. 
This  appears  in  the  frequent  appeal  to  the  gods 
in  reference  to  some  offense  unwittingly  com- 
mitted. But  this  is  not  a  knowledge  as  thorough 
as  the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  as  belonging  to 
Yahweh. 


Ill 

MORAL   ATTRIBUTES 

IT  is  often  thought  that  there  is  a  fundamental 
conception  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  of  the 
holiness  of  Yahweh,  expressed  by  the  root  mp^  and 
derived  words,  which  should  be  included  at  this 
point,  on  the  ground  that  by  holiness  is  meant 
ethical  completeness.  It  therefore  seems  neces- 
sary to  discuss  a  little  this  conception  of  holiness/ 
The  meaning  ethical  completeness  must  be  re- 
jected. There  is  very  little  to  favor  the  meaning. 
There  are  only  a  few  passages  which  seem  to 
suggest  it,  in  which  holiness  appears  to  be  a  strong 
general  designation  of  the  character  and  activity 
of  Yahweh.  In  general,  however,  the  use  of  the 
word  does  not  suggest  an  ethical  meaning,  but  a 
ritual.  According  to  the  usual  treatment  of  the 
matter,  it  seems  difficult  to  assign  any  very  defi- 
nite meaning  to  holiness,  particularly  as  used  of 
God.    In  reference  to  men,  animals,  and  material 

^  See  especially  the  treatment  of  Baudissin,  "  Studien  sur  Semiti- 
schen  Religionsgeschichte,"  II,  pp.   1142. 

70 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  71 

objects  it  is  supposed  to  mean,  and  doubtless  often 
does  mean,  consecrated  to  God;  but  this  suggests 
no  definite  meaning  for  the  word  as  applied  to 
God  himself. 

Probably  the  most  common  view  at  the  present 
time  is  that  the  root  mp^  meant  originally  to  be 
separate,  separated.  Then  this  came  to  mean, 
when  applied  elsewhere  than  to  God,  separated 
from  sin  and  uncleanness,  and  separated  unto 
God.  As  used  of  God,  it  meant  separation  from 
created  things,  especially  from  their  imperfection, 
sin,  and  uncleanness.  It  is  conceded,  however, 
that  the  meaning  to  he  separate  for  the  root  is 
only  conjectural,  and  is  assigned  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  original  form  of  the  root  was  ip, 
which  is  found  in  other  words  having  a  general 
meaning  to  cut.  This  etymological  basis,  how- 
ever, is  very  uncertain;  hence  it  seems  to  the 
present  writer  that  there  is  no  real  evidence  con- 
cerning the  original  meaning  of  the  root. 

In  Babylonian  the  verb  is  found,  quddushu, 
with  the  usual  meaning  to  make  clean,  ceremoni- 
ally; although  the  common  meaning  of  the  He- 
brew to  dedicate  to  God  seems  to  be  the  basis  of 
the  meaning  of  the  Babylonian  qadishtu,  a  temple 
prostitute.    In  Hebrew,  also,  as  well  as  in  Babylo' 


'J2  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

nian,  there  are  passages  in  which  the  words  under 
discussion  are  apparently  used  simply  of  ceremo- 
nial cleanness,  as  in  i  Sam.  21:5.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  earliest  meaning  which  can 
now  be  traced  is  this,  to  he  ceremonially  clean. 
The  first  application  of  this  meaning  was  doubt- 
less to  men,  animals,  and  material  objects,  not  to 
God.  But  later  it  was  applied  to  God,  as  deno- 
ting the  one  who  is  pure,  free  from  all  ceremonial 
uncleanness.  Since,  however,  it  is  an  essential 
condition  that  whatever  is  consecrated  to  God 
should  be  ceremonially  clean,  the  word  takes  on 
this  added  meaning,  consecrated  to  God,  sacred. 
As  used  of  God,  the  word  also  assumes  various 
connotations,  to  some  extent  adding  an  ethical 
idea  to  the  ceremonial,  although  the  latter  remains 
always  the  prominent  conception.  As  the  thought 
of  the  word  suggests  a  contrast  with  many  human 
and  material  objects,  it  gains  an  added  significance 
along  this  line,  suggesting  somewhat  the  power  of 
God.  It  is  interesting,  however,  in  this  connec- 
tion, to  note  that  Ezekiel,  the  ritual  prophet,  uses 
holy  of  Yahweh,  but  never  righteous;  while  his 
contemporary,  Jeremiah,  reverses  the  usage,  never 
applying  holy  to  Yahweh,  except  in  chap.  50  and 
51,  probably  later  than  Jeremiah  in  their  present 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  y2> 

form,  although  in  23  :  9  he  applies  it  to  the 
words  of  Yahweh. 

In  Babylonian,  as  has  been  said,  the  common 
meaning  of  the  word  is  the  early  one,  to  he  clean, 
ceremonially,  or,  as  there  used  in  the  intensive 
stem,  to  make  clean.  In  Hebrew  this  meaning  is 
found  in  a  few  cases.  This  meaning  is  also  found 
in  the  application  of  the  word  to  Yahweh  in  He- 
brew, although  with  additional  connotations,  as 
has  been  noted.  The  word  is  applied  to  the  gods, 
outside  of  Hebrew,  only  in  the  Phoenician,  so  far 
as  has  been  found.  In  the  inscription  of  Eshmu- 
nazar  in  that  language  (11.  9  and  22),'  the  gods  are 
called  Diynpn  djSkh  and  otynpn  d:S«,  the  holy  gods. 
The  meaning  here  is  evidently  similar  to  that  in 
the  Hebrew  when  applied  to  Yahweh.  The  de- 
rived meaning,  to  consecrate  to  god,  is  found  in 
the  Babylonian  qadishtu,  as  noted,  and  is  the  com- 
mon meaning  in  the  Hebrew,  when  applied  to  ob- 
jects other  than  God.  The  same  use  is  found  in 
Phoenician,  Aramaic,  Arabic,  and  Ethiopic. 

So  far  as  these  words  are  concerned,  then,  they 
do  not  show  any  general  ethical  conception  of  the 
character  of  Yahweh,  as  is  often  thought.  The 
conception  of  holiness,  in  fact,  in  the  Old  Testa- 

iCIS  I,  3. 


74  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ment  has  to  do  with  Yahweh  in  relation  to  ritual 
matters.  The  prominent  thought  is  that  Yahweh 
is  ceremonially  pure,  and  as  such  demands  clean- 
ness and  abhors  uncleanness.  This  ritual  concep- 
tion is  evidently  based  upon  an  original  physical 
idea  of  the  divine ;  yet  it  seems  clear  that  this  phy- 
sical thought  is  not  retained  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Nevertheless,  this  ceremonial  side  of  the 
conception  of  God  is  found,  which  is  based  upon 
the  common-Semitic  ideas.  The  ritual  legislation, 
where  this  idea  is  largely  found,  presents  then,  in 
general,  a  more  primitive  conception  of  Yahweh 
than  is  found  elsewhere. 

Aside  from  the  ritual  legislation,  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  character  of  Yahweh  is  distinctly  ethi- 
cal— ethical  completeness  belongs  to  him.  This 
is  not  shown  in  any  one  word  so  much  as  in  the 
whole  treatment  of  the  character  of  God :  he  has 
regard  to  the  ethical  as  well  as  the  religious  life 
of  men,  and  demands  of  them  moral  acts;  see 
also  what  is  said  later  under  righteousness.  Im- 
moral acts  are  forbidden,  sometimes  specifically, 
e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  prostitution,  in  connection  with 
the  worship  of  Yahweh.  The  prophets,  psalmists, 
and  wisdom  writers  present  the  character  of  Yah- 
weh as  thoroughly  ethical.    This  is  the  distinctive 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  75 

feature  of  the  Old  Testament  teaching  concern- 
ing the  moral  character  of  Yahweh. 

There  is  no  conception  like  this  in  the  other  re- 
ligions. Such  an  idea  as  ethical  completeness  is 
not  found  in  connection  with  any  of  their  gods. 
For  the  most  part  the  gods  of  the  other  Semitic 
religions  are  non-moral,  as  is  natural  with  gods 
derived  from  the  forces  of  nature.  This  means 
that  there  is  no  moral  side  to  their  character. 
Some  gods  are  immoral;  they  sanction  or  com- 
mand acts  which  are  immoral.  Among  the  Assyr- 
ians and  Babylonians  this  was  true  especially  of 
Ishtar  of  Babylonia,  who  was  worshiped  with 
prostitution.  The  Ishtar  cult  was  certainly  widely 
extended  among  the  Semites,  and  this  was  doubt- 
less a  usual  feature  of  the  worship.^  Where  eth- 
ical traits  are  found  in  the  teachings  concerning 
the  gods,  they  are  incomplete,  it  is  only  isolated 
features  that  appear.  For  the  consideration  of 
Nielsen's  view  of  early  common-Semitic  ethical 
monotheism,  see  the  treatment  under  monotheism. 

There  are  several  specific  moral  attributes  of 
Yahweh  emphasized  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
should  be  noticed  briefly. 

Faithfulness.     Faithfulness  or  trustworthiness 

1  Sec  especially  Barton,  "A  Sketch  of  Semitic  Origins,"  pp.  42f,  84. 


76  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

is  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  these  attributes. 
In  the  Old  Testament  treatment  this  is  regarded 
as  one  of  the  notable  results  of  Yahweh's  eternity : 
because  he  continues  from  age  to  age,  his  plans 
and  purposes,  his  character,  are  the  same.  This 
is  a  trait  which  gives  encouragement  to  his  wor- 
shipers :  their  treatment  will  be  in  accord  with  his 
well-known  character,  not  arbitrary  or  erratic. 
The  uniformity  of  his  attitude  can  be  depended 
on:  he  acts  in  accordance  with  fixed  principles. 
The  presence  of  ritual  offenses  only  slightly  modi- 
fies this,  because,  as  will  be  seen  later,  the  ritual 
element  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  culmination 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  held,  in  fact,  within 
narrowly  circumscribed  limits. 

It  is  only  to  a  slight  extent  that  this  trait  can 
be  discerned  in  any  of  the  other  Semitic  religions. 
The  way  in  which  the  favor  of  any  of  the  gods 
could  be  secured  and  held  was  a  matter  on  which 
no  definite  information  could  be  obtained.  Mis- 
fortune was  really  the  only  indication  that  any- 
thing was  wrong  in  the  relations  with  the  gods. 
The  nation,  and  the  king  as  its  principal  represent- 
ative, could  depend  on  the  favor  of  the  gods  as 
no  individual  was  able  to  do.  Yet  national  dis- 
aster was  not  unknown,  indicating  the  anger  of 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  77 

some  god,  an  anger  that  might  be  due  merely 
to  divine  caprice.  In  individual  life,  especially, 
there  were  no  fixed  principles  of  divine  favor. 
This  might  be  won  by  moral  character,  but  chiefly 
by  ritual,  especially  sacrifices,  or  by  magical  in- 
cantations. In  Babylonia  the  last  was  the  most 
certain  way,  while  among  all  the  Semitic  nations 
sacrifice  was  very  prominent.  In  all  these  relig- 
ions the  ritual  and  magical  element  is  the  promi- 
nent feature:  it  is  not  to  an  appreciable  extent 
replaced  by  anything  higher.  No  stress  was  laid, 
further,  upon  a  continuance  of  the  same  divine 
character  from  age  to  age.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  general  character  of  each  god  did  remain  the 
same,  for  the  most  part,  but  in  the  aggregate 
there  was  considerable  change.  This  is  specially 
noticeable  among  the  Babylonians  and  the  Egyp- 
tians, where  there  was  a  large  amount  of  assimi- 
lation of  the  deities  to  each  other,  obscuring  the 
individuality  of  each,  so  that  phrases  originally 
specially  appropriate  to  one  were  applied  almost 
indiscriminately.  Further,  among  the  Babylo- 
nians, at  least,  there  were  two  or  more  well- 
marked  phases  in  the  character  of  several  of  the 
prominent  gods,  which  must  have  discouraged 
still  more  any  belief  in  faithfulness  as  an  element 


78  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  divine  character:  e.  g.,  Shamash  was  the  god 
of  war  and  of  justice. 

Righteousness.  This  attribute  is  expressed  in 
Hebrew  by  the  word  pnv  and  its  derivatives.  The 
fundamental  idea  of  the  word  is  not  certain,  but 
it  seems  to  be  that  that  is  righteous  which  is  right 
in  the  highest  sense.  The  righteousness  of  Yah- 
weh  is  used  in  two  ways  especially.  In  the 
broader  sense  it  is  a  comprehensive  term,  sug- 
gesting an  idea  somewhat  like  the  ethical  com- 
pleteness of  God,  if  not  directly  expressing  it.  In 
such  a  meaning  as  this  it  is  without  parallel  among 
the  other  Semitic  religions,  as  already  noted. 
This  idea  may  also  be  somewhat  restricted,  indi- 
cating the  ethical  completeness  of  Yahweh  with 
special  reference  to  some  particular  attribute.  In 
the  other  way,  the  narrower  sense,  the  righteous- 
ness of  Yahweh  is  his  justice,  by  virtue  of  which 
he  gives  to  each  man  his  due,  in  reward  or  pun- 
ishment. In  this  sense  a  comparison  may  profit- 
ably be  made.  Here  and  there  it  may  be  that 
there  are  limitations  to  the  teaching  of  the  justice 
of  Yahweh,  especially  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.  But  the  general  teaching  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  that  Yahweh  deals  with  men  in 
accordance  with  their  real  deserts.  The  justice  of 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  79 

Yahweh  is  seen  more  especially  in  relation  to 
national  affairs.  The  chosen  nation,  Israel,  was 
destined  for  blessings.  But  this,  it  was  always 
understood,  was  only  on  condition  that  they  obey 
Yahweh.  Yet  this  condition  was  often  forgotten 
by  the  people  generally,  so  that  undoubtedly  the 
popular  idea,  especially  shortly  before  the  exile, 
was  that  Yahweh  must  inevitably  favor  his  own 
people;  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  destroy 
them  on  account  of  sin.  But  the  prophets  gave 
no  encouragement  to  this  idea,  and  a  large  part 
of  their  teaching  was  the  insistence  upon  Yah- 
weh's  justice.  If  the  nation  sins  it  will  be  pun- 
ished, even  destroyed.  The  special  privileges  of 
the  chosen  nation  but  increase  its  guilt,  and  there- 
fore the  certainty  of  punishment  (Amos  3:2). 
Foreign  nations  are  agents  in  the  hands  of  Yah- 
weh for  the  punishment  of  Israel,  and  conse- 
quently they  are  given  the  victory.  Yet  these  for- 
eign nations  also  are  in  his  power,  and  he  will 
deal  justly  with  them;  ultimately  they  shall  be 
punished  as  well.  The  justice  of  Yahweh  in  his 
dealings  with  all  nations  is  emphasized  in  such 
passages  as  Isa.  3  :  13;  2  :  19,  21 ;  10  :  23;  14  : 
26;  28  :  22.  The  relation  of  the  individual  to 
Yahweh  is  not  neglected,  however,  in  thinking  of 


80  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  nation.  The  justice  of  God  is  shown  clearly 
in  relation  to  the  individual.  This  is  emphasized 
especially  in  some  of  the  later  prophets,  as  in  Jer. 
31  :  29,  30;  Ezek.  18,  and  often  in  the  wisdom 
literature. 

Such  a  conception  of  impartial  justice  between 
individuals  and  nations  is  not  met  with  outside 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  localization  of  gods 
meant  the  localization  of  justice  as  well.  The 
conception  of  national  gods  meant  that  such  a  god 
had  no  relation  to  other  peoples  except  that  of 
hostility.  Justice  was  inconceivable  in  reference 
to  dealings  with  other  nations.  National  disaster 
was  attributed  to  divine  anger,  but  the  grounds 
of  the  anger  could  only  imperfectly  be  grasped ;  it 
was  not  based  chiefly  upon  divine  justice.  On 
a  smaller  scale,  the  conception  that  any  god  was 
concerned  with  exact  justice  to  individuals  was 
held  only  to  a  limited  extent.  The  prevalence  of 
magic  showed  lack  of  confidence  in  the  justice  of 
the  deities  as  well  as  in  their  faithfulness.  In 
the  character  of  most  of  the  gods  justice  does  not 
appear  at  all.  Hardly  a  trace  of  the  conception  of 
divine  justice  can  be  found  except  in  Babylonia, 
South  Arabia,  and  Egypt.  In  Babylonia  justice 
cannot  be  called  a  trait  in  the  character  of  any 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  8 1 

god  except  Shamash,  although  the  connection  of 
the  gods  with  each  other  leads  to  occasional  al- 
lusions to  it  in  the  case  of  other  gods.  Shamash 
is  the  "  great  judge  of  heaven  and  earth,"  ^  and 
as  such  is  the  god  of  justice.  It  is  from  Shamash 
that  Hammurabi  says  he  received  his  code  of 
laws.  Shalmaneser  II  calls  Shamash  *'  the  judge 
of  the  four  quarters  of  the  world,  who  leads  aright 
mankind."  "  And  it  was  a  fairly  exalted  idea  of 
justice  that  was  found  in  connection  with  him. 
Hammurabi  uses  such  expressions  as  these,  "  By 
the  command  of  Shamash,  the  great  judge  of 
heaven  and  earth,  may  I  make  righteousness  to 
shine  forth  on  the  land."  '*  Let  any  oppressed 
man,  who  has  a  cause,  come  before  my  image  as 
king  of  righteousness !  "  '*  In  the  days  that  are 
yet  to  come,  for  all  future  time,  may  the  king  who 
is  in  the  land  observe  the  words  of  righteousness 
which  I  have  written  upon  my  monument." 
"  That  the  strong  might  not  oppress  the  weak, 
and  that  they  should  give  justice  to  the  orphan 
and  the  widow."  ^ 

Yet  this  is  only  one  phase  of  the  character  of 
Shamash.    As  a  sun-god  he  has  the  limitation  of 

1  Hammurabi,  Code,  col.   XL,  1.   Ssf.  =  Monolith,  col.   I,  1.   3. 

3  Code,  col.  XL  :  11.  84-88;   col.   XLI  :  11.   1-5,   59-65;  col.   XL  :  11. 
59-62. 


S2  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

that  material  connection.  He  is  also  a  god  of 
war,  in  which  phase  of  his  character  justice  was 
obviously  subordinate.  His  justice  had  to  do  with 
externals.  He  favored  kings  not  because  they 
were  righteous,  but  because  they  claimed  to  be 
righteous.  He  is  prominent  in  the  incantation 
texts,  where  no  clear  idea  of  justice  can  be  per- 
ceived. These  things  limit  the  conception  of  jus- 
tice, even  in  the  case  of  Shamash. 

In  the  Egyptian  religion  Osiris  is  the  only 
prominent  god  whose  character  shows  a  concep- 
tion of  justice.  He  was  originally  a  man,  it  is 
said,  conspicuous  for  righteousness  and  mercy. 
In  his  character  as  judge  of  men  after  death  he 
takes  into  account  prominently  their  moral  char- 
acter as  determining  their  destiny.  Yet  in  other 
representations  of  the  future  life,  ritual  observ- 
ances have  chiefly  to  do  with  the  final  condition. 
In  general,  the  prominence  of  ritual  and  magic 
obscures  the  Egyptian  conception  of  divine 
justice. 

In  the  South-Arabic  religion,  the  only  material 
so  far  available  showing  a  conception  of  divine 
justice  is  in  the  proper  names  already  referred  to. 
Here  are  found  such  names  as  tsadaq-ilu,  god  is 
righteous.     This,  of  course,  without  further  evi- 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  83 

dence,  can  only  indicate  that  there  were  traces  of 
the  conception  of  divine  justice  in  this  reHgion. 

Love,  including  mercy  and  grace.  Mercy  is 
help  to  the  needy;  grace,  favor  to  the  undeserv- 
ing. Both  are  prominent  in  all  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Love,  in  some  respects  a  stronger  term,  is 
emphasized  chiefly  in  the  prophets.  It  is  es- 
pecially from  the  grace  of  God  that  forgiveness  of 
sins  comes  and  must  come,  since  man  is  alv^ays 
undeserving  by  reason  of  sin.  These  qualities  are 
ordinarily  manifested  toward  Israel,  although  it 
is  a  part  of  the  prophetic  expectation  that  the 
nations  shall  in  the  future  share  in  the  grace  and 
forgiveness  of  Yahweh.  Some  instances  are  found 
of  this  participation  in  the  present  time;  such  is 
the  prominent  lesson  of  the  book  of  Jonah.  The 
love  of  Yahweh  clothes  itself  in  the  forms  of 
human  relationship — father,  husband — yet  it  is 
not  a  physical  love  but  an  ethical ;  it  is  found  in 
the  prophets  who  constantly  insist  upon  the  rela- 
tionship of  Yahweh  to  his  people  on  the  ethical 
side. 

This  attribute  is  undoubtedly  found  to  a  large 
extent  in  all  the  religions  under  consideration. 
In  the  general  Semitic  conception  the  gods  are 
favorable  to  men.    Yet  in  polytheism,  while  some 


84  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  the  gods  love,  others  hate.  From  early  times, 
however,  the  unfavorable  deities  have  usually 
occupied  a  subordinate  place,  so  that  in  the  Bab- 
ylonian religion  they  are  largely,  but  not  en- 
tirely, spirits  rather  than  gods,  and  among  the 
Arabs  they  are  the  jinns.  Mercy  and  grace, 
leading  to  forgiveness,  are  sought  by  the  sup- 
pliants in  the  Babylonian  prayers.  But,  like 
other  features  of  the  religion,  in  the  general 
Semitic  conception  the  love  and  mercy  lack  an 
ethical  basis;  they  are  rather  like  ordinary  hu- 
man love.  The  cause  of  an  unfavorable  attitude 
of  the  deity  is  not  certainly  known;  the  princi- 
ples upon  which  it  can  be  removed  are  not  defi- 
nitely settled,  although  in  general  they  are  ritual 
and  magical  rather  than  ethical;  and  the  corre- 
sponding principles  upon  which  love  and  mercy 
depend  are  obscure.  Further,  love  and  mercy 
have  always  the  local  limitations. 


PART  III 

MAN 


SIN 


THERE    are,  of  course,  certain  questions  in 
relation  to  man  that  precede  the  question 
of  sin.     These  are  especially  those  that  relate  to 
the  creation,  nature,  and  constitution  of  man.  But 
at  this  point  there  is  very  little  material  for  com- 
parison.   The  accounts  in  Genesis  say  that  Yah- 
weh  created  man.     The  principal  creation  tablet 
of  the  Babylonians  already  referred  to,   enuma 
elish,  says  that  Marduk  of  Babylon  created  man. 
The  fragment  from  Eridu  attributes  this  to  Mar- 
duk of  Eridu,  originally  distinct  from  Marduk  of 
Babylon.    The  small  fragment  in  which  Ashur  ap- 
pears as  the  creator  does  not  mention  the  creation 
of  man.     This,  however,  is  doubtless  due  to  its 
fragmentary  condition.    It  is,  therefore,  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Babylonians  as  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  man  originated  by  divine  creation,  although 
in  the  separate  Babylonian  recensions  the  act  is 
assigned  to  various  gods.    There  is  no  clear  Sem- 
itic teaching,  beyond  this,  concerning  the  nature 

87 


88  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

and  constitution  of  man  which  can  be  compared 
with  the  Old  Testament  statements. 

There  can  be  little  question  that  the  other  Sem- 
itic religions  agree  with  the  Old  Testament  in 
holding  to  the  universality  of  sin,  in  some  sense  of 
the  term.  This  is  seen  from  the  universality  of 
sacrifice,  some  forms  of  which,  as  will  be  seen, 
presuppose  sin.  It  is  seen  more  clearly,  in  the 
Babylonian  religion,  from  the  so-called  peniten- 
tial psalms,  prayers,  etc.,  in  which  there  is  confes- 
sion of  sin.  The  Old  Testament  account  of  the 
fall  of  man  is  undoubtedly  intended  to  teach  the 
origin  of  human  sin  with  the  first  man.  No 
parallel  to  this  Old  Testament  account  has  been 
found  elsewhere,  the  supposed  Babylonian  paral- 
lel, consisting  simply  of  a  picture,  is  of  uncertain 
meaning,  and  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  it  has 
any  such  reference. 

From  a  comparison  of  the  different  religions, 
as  will  be  seen  more  fully  later,  it  seems  reason- 
ably certain  that  the  early  conception  of  sin 
among  the  Semites  was  the  doing  of  that  which 
is  displeasing  to  the  gods.  But  in  this  early  con- 
ception, further,  the  gods  cared  only  for  human 
action  so  far  as  it  directly  concerned  them; 
hence  sin  consisted  in  transgression  of  the  regu- 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  89 

lations  in  connection  with  the  sacrifices  or  other 
features  of  worship.  It  thus  had  to  do  with  ritual 
acts,  and  not  with  one's  relation  to  his  fellow- 
man.  Such  a  conception  of  sin  is  not  only  in 
harmony  with  the  early  ideas  concerning  the 
gods,  as  just  noted,  but  is  also  indicated  as  the 
common-Semitic  idea  by  the  fact  that  it  is  the 
prominent  element  in  the  ideas  of  sin  among  the 
Semitic  nations  generally,  except  among  the  He- 
brews, and  their  religion  has  traces  of  such  a  con- 
ception. The  early  Semitic  conception  of  sin, 
then,  had  no  ethical  character.  It  was  also  with- 
out fixed  principles,  it  depended  simply  upon  the 
will  of  the  gods,  and  that  will,  being  non-ethical, 
was  capricious;  besides,  an  act  might  be  dis- 
pleasing to  one  god  that  was  pleasing  to  another. 

There  was  but  one  infallible  indication  of  sin 
in  this  early  conception,  its  results.  Sin  brings 
punishment  without  fail.  Sickness,  disaster,  mis- 
fortune, death,  all  are  simply  the  results  of  sin. 
These,  however,  do  not  show  what  is  wrong,  but 
only  that  some  sin  has  been  committed.  It  is 
necessarily  uncertain  what  the  sin  is  in  any  par- 
ticular case. 

If  such  is  the  early  Semitic  conception,  how  far 
has  it  been  retained  and  how  far  modified  among 


90  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  several  nations?  The  most  definite  informa- 
tion available  is  concerning  the  Babylonians,  but 
certain  indications  among  the  other  nations  point 
also  to  the  conclusion  that  this  early  conception 
has  been  retained  without  any  great  modification 
among  all  the  nations  except  the  Hebrews. 

Among  the  Babylonians  the  prevailing  concep- 
tion is  simply  that  which  has  been  indicated ;  sin  is 
of  a  ritual  nature.  There  are  among  this  people 
many  tablets  dealing  with  religious  subjects  in 
which  the  matter  of  sin  is  treated.  These  are  ar- 
ranged in  several  series.  In  most  of  the  tablets, 
it  is  stated  by  Morgenstern,^  it  is  only  ritual  sin 
that  is  recognized ;  in  but  one  series,  called  Shur- 
pu,  are  ethical  acts  included  with  ritual,  although 
without  distinction  between  them.  This  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  prevailing  non-ethical  conception 
of  the  divine  character  among  the  Babylonians, 
with  some  traces  of  ethical  elements. 

The  question  may  arise  in  what  way  moral 
offenses  came  to  be  included,  even  to  a  slight  ex- 
tent, with  the  ritual.  It  is  obvious  that,  on  the 
ritual  conception,  the  gods  were  considered  to  be 
selfish:  if  they  themselves  were  treated  with  due 
honor  they  were  not  concerned  about  the  treat- 

^  "  The  Doctrine  of  Sin  in  the  Babylonian  Religion,"  p.  2. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  QI 

ment  of  one  man  by  another.  The  rise  of  any 
concern  of  this  kind  probably  came  along  the  line 
of  the  relation  of  the  god  to  the  tribe;  he  was 
physically  connected  with  the  tribe.  Hence,  he  was 
interested  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  tribe,  and 
at  first  for  particular  individuals  simply  in  rela- 
tion to  the  whole.  But  with  the  growth  of  indi- 
vidualism, especially  arising  from  change  of  cus- 
toms, advance  in  civilization,  and  increase  of 
individual  possessions,  came  inevitably  some  con- 
ception of  the  care  of  the  god  for  individuals, 
even  when  not  directly  connected  with  the  gen- 
eral tribal  welfare.  When,  under  these  circum- 
stances, one  individual  appealed  to  the  god  for 
redress  of  an  injury  done  by  another,  it  would  be 
necessary  for  the  god,  in  their  conception,  to  pay 
some  attention  to  this  appeal,  and  consequently 
to  punish  the  offender  against  his  fellow-man, 
i.  e.,  his  fellow-tribesman.  Thus  was  developed 
some  conception  of  sin  toward  one's  fellow-man, 
but  only  within  the  tribe :  such  a  thing  as  sin  to- 
ward those  outside  the  tribe  or  nation  was  un- 
known. 

Among  the  Babylonians  it  was  thought  that  all 
punishment  for  sin  was  inflicted  directly  by  de- 
mons.   At  first  these  were  merely  the  instruments 


92  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  the  greater  gods,  the  real  gods.  But  after  a 
time  the  demons  were  considered  to  work  to  a 
large  extent  independently,  in  subordination  to 
the  gods,  yet  usually  without  direct  connection 
with  them.  The  demons  hated  men  and  took  de- 
light in  inflicting  misfortune  on  them.  The  gods 
were  sufficiently  powerful  to  prevent  the  demons 
from  injuring  one,  yet  often  they  were  rather  in- 
different than  otherwise,  which  attitude  gave  the 
demons  their  opportunity.  In  sickness  the  de- 
mons were  considered  to  be  actually  present  in 
the  body;  hence  sickness  itself  made  one  unclean, 
and  was  therefore  not  only  the  result  of  sin  but 
itself  a  sin.  All  dealings  with  the  demons  were 
naturally  on  a  purely  ritual  basis. 

The  early  teaching  that  all  misfortune  is  the 
result  of  sin  was  thus  retained  in  the  Babylonian 
conception.  The  connection  was  apparently  often 
thought  of  as  indirect  rather  than  direct.  The  in- 
dividual had  not  been  sufficiently  zealous  in  keep- 
ing the  favorable  attention  of  the  greater  gods  so 
that  they  would  ward  off  the  attacks  of  the  de- 
mons. The  idea  of  the  activity  of  the  demons  was 
further  extended,  also,  in  connection  with  the 
witches.  These  were  persons  through  whom  the 
demons  especially  worked  to  the  injury  of  others. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  93 

Yet  these  were  often  considered  really  to  have 
control  of  the  activity  of  the  demons.  In  that 
case,  then,  the  individual  who  suffered  from  the 
activity  of  the  witches  was  injured  directly  by 
reason  of  human  hostility,  that  of  the  witch. 
Possibly  here  is  to  be  found  some  not  unnatural 
inconsistency  in  the  representation,  i.  e.,  if  suf- 
fering comes  as  a  result  of  human  hostility  it 
does  not  seem  that  sin  has  directly  to  do  with  it. 
Yet  the  prominent  idea  apparently  was  that  some 
remissness  in  relation  to  the  gods,  i.  e.,  some  sin, 
had  caused  them  so  far  to  relax  their  vigilance  as 
to  give  the  witches  an  opportunity  for  the  exercise 
of  their  arts. 

Among  the  other  Semitic  nations,  aside  from 
the  Babylonians  and  the  Hebrews,  indications  that 
the  view  of  sin  is  in  general  the  early  one  here 
stated  come  chiefly  from  the  prominence  of  sac- 
rifice and  ritual,  and  from  the  absence  of  positive 
statements  to  show  any  real  prevalence  of  an  ethic- 
al conception.    This  is  a  summary  of  the  state  of 
the  case  among  the  Arabs  before  Muhammad,  the 
Southern  Arabs,  the  Arameans,  and  the  Phoeni- 
cians.   W.  Robertson  Smith,  evidently  basing  his 
view  chiefly  upon  Arabic  customs,  speaks  of  "  a 
very  primitive  type  of  religion,  in  which  the  sense 


94  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  sin,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  word,  did  not 
exist  at  all,  and  the  whole  object  of  ritual  was  to 
maintain  the  bond  of  physical  holiness  that  kept 
the  religious  community  together."  ^  Among  the 
Arabs  before  Muhammad,  according  to  Wellhau- 
sen,  the  ordinary  worship  was  simply  ritual,  and 
the  idea  of  sin  was  ritual.  There  was  some  de- 
velopment of  tribal  duties,  but  this  was  imperfect, 
while  there  were  no  duties  to  any  man  outside  the 
tribe.  Further,  this  idea  of  morality  within  the 
tribe,  according  to  Wellhausen,  arose  from  the 
sense  of  relationship  to  the  tribe  and  not  from  the 
religion;  although  this,  it  seems  to  the  present 
writer,  was  indirectly  religious,  because  of  the 
conception  of  the  physical  connection  of  the  god 
with  the  tribe.  There  was,  however,  as  a  late 
development,  a  worship  of  Allah  which  had  little 
connection  with  the  cult,  in  which  there  was  a 
broader  development  of  the  ethical  idea.^  Hence, 
it  would  seem  that  the  Arabic  conception  was 
very  similar  to  the  Babylonian,  the  early  idea  of 
sin  was  simply  ritual,  but  ultimately  acts  in  the 
sphere  of  morals  were  also  included,  although  not 
so  as  to  supersede  the  other  conception. 

^  "  Religion  of  the  Semites,"  2d  ed.,  p.  401. 

2 "  Reste   Arabischen    Heidentums,"    2d    ed.,    passim,    especially    p. 
219  seq. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  95 

We  come  to  a  consideration  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaching.  It  is  of  course  generally  recog- 
nized that  the  Old  Testament  regards  as  sins  acts 
both  in  the  moral  and  in  the  ceremonial  sphere. 
The  actual  relation  between  the  two  conceptions, 
however,  is  much  disputed.  In  view  of  what  has 
already  been  presented,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
Old  Testament  treatment  of  ceremonial  acts  as 
sins  is  based  upon  the  common-Semitic  view  al- 
ready presented,  and  is  in  fact  substantially  the 
same,  although  with  differences  in  detail.  The 
underlying  principle,  so  far  as  these  acts  are  con- 
cerned, is  the  one  already  enunciated:  sin  is  rit- 
ual ;  any  variation  from  the  prescribed  ceremonies 
is  sin.  This  goes  so  far  that  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment uncleanness  is  treated  as  sin,  even  when  it 
comes  from  natural  causes,  as  from  an  accidental 
occurrence,  or  disease,  or  childbirth.  Thus  un- 
cleanness resulting  from  unavoidable  contact  of 
a  Nazirite  with  a  dead  body  is  called  sin  (Num. 
6  :  9-11),  "  If  any  man  die  very  suddenly  beside 
him,  and  he  defile  the  head  of  his  separation ;  then 
he  shall  shave  his  head  in  the  day  of  his  cleansing, 
on  the  seventh  day  shall  he  shave  it.  And  on  the 
eighth  day  he  shall  bring  two  turtle  doves,  or  two 
young  pigeons,  to  the  priest,  to  the  door  of  the 


96  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

tent  of  meeting ;  and  the  priest  shall  offer  one  for 
a  sin  offering,  and  the  other  for  a  burnt  offering, 
and  make  atonement  for  him,  for  that  he  sinned 
by  reason  of  the  dead,  and  shall  hallow  his  head 
that  same  day."  A  sin  offering  is  also  prescribed 
in  the  graver  cases  of  uncleanness,  for  a  leper 
who  has  been  cleansed  (Lev.  14  :  19),  a  man 
who  has  an  issue  (Lev.  15  :  15),  and  a  woman 
after  childbirth  (Lev.  12  :  6,  8),  as  well  as  for 
the  uncleanness  of  a  Nazirite  (Num.  6  :  11), 
above  mentioned.  Apparently  similar  is  the  sin 
offering  for  the  Nazirite  after  the  completion 
of  the  time  of  his  vow  (Num.  6  :  14).  Prob- 
ably passages  such  as  Num.  19  :  13,  20,  where 
it  is  said  that  the  unclean  person  who  will  not 
purify  himself  shall  be  cut  off  from  the  assembly, 
should  not  be  included  directly  here,  since  the 
conception  probably  is  that  the  punishment  was 
not  so  much  for  the  uncleanness  as  for  the  per- 
sistent disobedience.  It  is  doubtless  a  result  of 
this  earlier  conception  that  moral  'n  is  often 
spoken  of  as  uncleanness,  even  by  the  prophets, 
as  in  Isa.  i  :  16;  6  :  5;  Jer.  33  :  8;  Lam.  4  : 
I4f.  This  form  of  expression  probably  has  come 
to  be  used  because  the  earlier  conception  of  sin 
as  ritual,  i.  e.,  as  uncleanness,  was  broadened  so 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  97 

as  to  embrace  also  moral  sins,  which  then  were  in- 
cluded under  the  term  uncleanness  or  defilement. 
As  the  prophets  use  the  language,  however,  it 
probably  does  not  represent  the  distinctly  pro- 
phetic view,  but  rather  the  employment  of  lan- 
guage in  common  use. 

Except  in  the  distinctly  ritual  portions,  how- 
ever, the  Old  Testament  for  the  most  part  pre- 
sents another  view.  In  harmony  with  the  lofty 
ethical  character  of  Yahweh,  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  inevitable  that  there  should  be 
an  ethical  view  of  sin.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
sin  is  that  which  is  opposed  to  the  will  of  Yah- 
weh. But  this  will  is  regarded  as  a  comprehen- 
sive thing,  it  embraces  all  one's  relations  with  his 
fellow-men,  as  well  as  directly  with  Yahweh. 
In  the  teaching  of  prophets,  psalmists,  and  wis- 
dom writers,  therefore,  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon 
sins  of  an  ethical  nature,  injustice,  oppression, 
robbery,  murder,  etc.  And  when  the  direct  rela- 
tion to  Yahweh  is  in  mind,  the  thought  is  usually 
not  of  the  details  of  the  ritual,  but  of  the  general 
question  of  loyalty  to  Yahweh  or  rejection  of 
him. 

In  brief,  then,  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament  a 
conception  that  sin  is  of  a  ritual  nature,  which  is 


98  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

esentially  the  same  as  the  early  common-Semitic 
conception.  This  is  found  chiefly  in  the  Levitical 
legislation.  There  are  also  indications  in  the 
Old  Testament  of  an  advance  from  this  view  to 
the  one  found  among  the  Babylonians,  that  sin, 
of  a  ritual  nature,  may  include  moral  transgres- 
sions as  well.  A  further  step  is  taken,  however, 
in  which  the  Old  Testament  teaching  is  distinct- 
ive :  sin  is  recognized  as  in  principle  of  an  ethical 
nature,  and  hence  of  a  fixed  character,  embra- 
cing all  possible  relations,  in  harmony  with  the 
teaching  concerning  Yahweh  as  a  God  of  an 
ethical  character,  who  cares  for  all  human  ac- 
tivities and  relations. 


II 

SALVATION  THROUGH  SACRIFICE 

REDEMPTION,  as  ordinarily  used,  means 
deliverance  from  sin  and  its  effects :  salva- 
tion includes  this  and  also  the  positive  blessings 
that  flow  from  such  deliverance.  Practically, 
then,  salvation,  speaking  in  common-Semitic 
terms,  means  the  answer  to  the  question,  In  what 
ways  can  man,  who  is  a  sinner,  so  far  remove  the 
effects  of  sin  in  relation  to  the  gods  that  he  can 
obtain  and  keep  their  favor  ?  Various  answers  to 
this  question  are  found  among  the  Semites;  the 
one  common  answer  is  through  sacrifice,  which 
will  first  be  considered. 

The  present  discussion  is  limited  to  this  life, 
as  it  is  that  which  Is  chiefly  considered  both  In  the 
Old  Testament  and  in  the  literature  of  the  other 
Semitic  nations.  The  conception  of  the  future 
life  will  be  treated  by  Itself. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  consider  first  certain  gen- 
eral features  of  Semitic  sacrifices;  after  that  the 
significance  will  be  discussed. 

99 


lOO  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

Place  and  time  of  sacriUces.  In  the  earlier  Old 
Testament  usage  sacrifice  was  offered  in  many 
places.  Later  the  worship  was  centralized,  and  sac- 
rifices were  required  to  be  offered  at  one  place — 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  In  the  common-Semitic 
usage  there  is  a  measure  of  centralization  of  wor- 
ship, but  nothing  so  definite  as  in  this  later  Old 
Testament  regulation.  Of  course,  in  any  polythe- 
istic system  there  is  worship  in  many  places,  to 
different  gods.  Regularly,  however,  there  was  a 
central  point  for  the  worship  of  each  god,  the  tem- 
ple at  the  city  where  its  worship  was  especially  lo- 
calized. But,  in  general,  any  god  could  also  be 
worshiped  in  other  localities.  In  Babylonia  and 
Assyria  the  goddess  Ishtar  was  worshiped  with  al- 
most equal  honor  at  several  cities,  although  she  be- 
came thus  practically  separated  into  distinct  deities. 
Further,  certain  tendencies,  especially  the  monar- 
chical, led  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria  to  the  build- 
ing of  temples  and  altars  to  many  other  deities 
around  those  of  the  chief  god  of  a  prominent  city, 
their  subordination  being  indicated  in  this  way, 
or  to  the  placing  of  other  images  in  the  temple  of 
the  special  god  of  the  city.  Thus  there  were  no 
less  than  thirteen  sacred  edifices  in  Lagash  used 
for  the  worship  of  as  many  gods,  and  in  the  old 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  lOI 

temple  in  the  city  of  Ashur  approximately  twenty 
deities  were  worshiped/ 

It  is  usually  thought  that  centralization  of  wor- 
ship among  the  Hebrews  resulted  from  practical 
considerations,  by  reason  of  the  abuses  resulting 
from  worship  at  the  "  high  places."  While  this 
may  have  had  some  force,  it  seems  evident  that 
centralization  was  in  harmony  with  the  early  idea 
of  sacrifice.  In  this  early  idea,  as  we  shall  see, 
sacrifice  was  a  clan  matter,  conducted  usually  by 
the  whole  clan,  and  doubtless  ordinarily  at  the 
same  place.  This  communal  idea  was  preserved 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  the  peace  offering,  but 
much  less  in  the  burnt  offering.  Yet,  in  general, 
the  relation  to  the  community  was  preserved 
among  the  Hebrews  more  than  among  the  other 
nations :  the  sacrifice  always  had  some  reference 
to  the  national  life.  Hence,  when  the  unity  of  the 
whole  nation  became  prominent,  it  was  natural 
that  this  communal  side  of  the  worship  should  be 
emphasized  by  its  centralization. 

Concerning  the  time  and  circumstances  of 
sacrifice,  little  difference  is  to  be  observed.  In  all 
the  Semitic  nations  sacrifice  was  both  national 
and  individual :  the  relation  between  these  differ- 

^  Jastrow,  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  pp.  635,  637. 


102  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

eiit  forms  will  be  considered  in  connection  with 
their  significance.  National  sacrifices  were  of- 
fered on  any  important  occasion,  such  as  a  feast 
or  special  day  of  any  kind.  In  Babylonia  there 
was  daily  sacrifice  as  well  as  in  Israel.  This  is 
well  established  for  the  cities  of  Borsippa,  Sippar, 
Kutha,  and  Nineveh,  and  probably  was  practised 
elsewhere  also.^  Individual  sacrifices  could  evi- 
dently be  offered  at  any  convenient  occasion 
among  all  the  nations. 

In  all  the  nations  priests  have  a  prominent  part. 
They  are  called  by  the  same  name  among  the  He- 
brews, Arabs,  and  Phoenicians.  Among  the  Min- 
ceans  the  priests  and  priestesses  are  called  i^)b  and 
n«i!5,  which  may  be  connected  with  the  Hebrew 
')b.^  Among  the  Arabs  alone  they  have  nothing 
directly  to  do  with  the  sacrifices,  which  are  of- 
fered by  the  one  who  brings  them.  This  is  doubt- 
less connected  with  the  fact  that  in  Arabia  the 
offering  is  the  pouring  out  of  the  blood  on  the 
sacred  stone,  so  that  it  is  in  reality  a  part  of  the 
act  of  slaughtering.  There  the  priest  was  the 
guardian  of  the  holy  place  and  the  one  who  gave 
oracles,  especially  by  lot.     The  priesthood  was 


^  Jastrow,   "  Religion  of   Babylonia  and  Assyria,"   p,   667. 
2  Hommel,   "  Sud-arabische  Chrestomathie,"  p.   127. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  IO3 

hereditary.  In  all  the  other  Semitic  nations  the 
offering  was  ordinarily  performed  by  the  priest, 
with  some  exceptions  in  the  early  Old  Testament 
usage.  Little  information  beyond  that  just 
stated  is  at  hand  in  reference  to  the  Carthaginian 
priests.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  priesthood  was 
hereditary,  in  Babylonia  at  any  rate  largely  so. 
The  two  nations  had  similar  regulations  concern- 
ing the  physical  perfection  of  the  priests.  The 
chief  difference  between  the  Babylonians  and  the 
Hebrews  was  in  the  wider  range  of  priestly  activi- 
ties among  the  former  people.  It  was  the  priests 
who  had  charge  of  incantations  and  omens,  as 
well  as  sacrifice,  practices  which  are  forbidden  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Those  in  Babylonia  whose 
work  was  most  like  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  were  there  a  branch  of  the  priesthood. 
In  Babylonia  the  king  was  regarded  as  in  some 
sense  the  head  of  the  priests,^  as  he  never  was 
among  the  Hebrews.  Presumably  this  means  that 
the  early  prominence  of  the  priests  was  such  that 
it  was  from  priestly  families  that  the  kings  came. 
Yet  this  preeminence  became  nominal,  the  king 
himself  needing  the  intercession  of  the  priests.^ 

*  Jastrow,  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  655f. 
'  Jastrow,   "  Religion  of   Babylonia  and   Assyria,"   p.   692. 


I04  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

The  power  of  the  priests  was  very  great  in  Bab- 
ylonia. This  doubtless  resulted  from  the  great 
prominence  of  ritual  which  only  the  priests  knew 
how  to  perform,  and  partly  from  the  related 
reason  that  the  priests  were  distinctly  the  edu- 
cated class. 

The  materials  used  in  sacrifice  have  a  gen- 
eral similarity  among  all  the  nations,  although 
with  some  variations.  Ordinarily  the  animals 
sacrificed  are  clean  domestic  animals,  although 
not  all  of  these  are  allowed  to  be  used.  The  sac- 
rificial animals  among  the  Hebrews  were  cattle, 
sheep,  goats,  turtle-doves,  and  pigeons.  Among 
the  Phoenicians,  at  least  at  Carthage  and  vicinity, 
they  were  cattle,  sheep,  goats,  domestic  birds,  deer 
(y«),  young  (?)  deer  (Vk  any),  wild  birds  (?) 
(ya),  and  game  (nv).^  Among  the  Babylonians 
the  sacrificial  animals  included  cattle,  sheep,  goats, 
gazelles,  fish,  and  birds.^  The  favorite  animal  sac- 
rifice, however,  and  the  one  especially  mentioned 
in  the  sacrificial  regulations  which  have  been 
found,  was  the  lamb.  The  sacrificial  animals  of 
the  Arabs  were  camels,  sheep,  and  cattle.^  Camels 
were  also  eaten  by  the  Arabs,  although  neither 

1  Marseilles  Tablet,  CIS,   I,   165. 

^  See  especially  inscription  of  Gudea,  KB,  III,  pp.  60-65, 

*  Wellhausen,  "  Reste  arabischen  Hexdentums,"  26.  ed.,  p,   115. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I05 

eaten  nor  sacrificed  by  the  Hebrews.  Gazelles 
were  also  sacrificed  by  the  Arabs,  although  re- 
garded as  an  imperfect  substitute  for  a  sheep. 

Among  all  the  Semitic  nations  there  were 
bloodless  offerings  as  well.  The  materials  for 
these  in  the  Old  Testament  were  meal,  oil,  in- 
cense, and  wine,  together  with  salt.  In  Babylonia, 
they  were  honey,  butter — these  two  usually  mixed 
— milk,  dates,  figs,  oil,  salt,  incense,  wine  of  all 
kinds,  water,  and  perhaps  other  things.^  Among 
the  Arabs  the  principal  materials  were  meal  and 
milk :  incense  was  not  used,  and  oil  and  wine  but 
rarely.^  Among  the  Phoenicians  the  materials 
were  meal,  fruit,  oil,  incense,  milk,  and  fat.^ 

The  general  principle  seems  to  have  been  the 
same  among  all  the  Semitic  nations,  covering  all 
the  sacrifices :  the  sacrifices  were  taken  from  the 
ordinary  food  of  the  people,  but  probably  did  not 
in  any  case  include  all  articles  of  ordinary  food. 
There  may  have  been  various  reasons  for  the 
omission  of  specific  articles.  Milk  is  omitted 
from  the  Hebrew  list  alone.  Fat  is  included  in 
the  minha  by  the  Phoenicians,  while  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  fat  of  the  intestines  is  always  a 

1  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.  599^- 

2  Wellhausen,        Reste    arabischen    Heidentiims,"    2d    ed.,    p.     114; 
W.   Robertson  Smith,  "  Religion  of  the  Semites,"  2d  ed.,  p.  220. 

3  CIS,  I,   i65f. 


I06  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

part  of  a  bloody  offering,  and  is  burned  upon  the 
altar,  so  that  its  use  is  forbidden  as  food/  Spe- 
cially notable  is  the  use  of  honey  in  the  Babylonian 
ritual,  which  is  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Old 
Testament.^  This  is  perhaps  an  illustration  of 
another  principle  in  the  Old  Testament  regula- 
tions, viz.,  the  avoidance  of  some  materials  for 
sacrifice  used  by  the  surrounding  nations,  possi- 
bly to  remove  temptations  to  idolatry. 

The  diif event  kinds  of  sacrifices.  The  division 
of  sacrifices  according  to  their  meaning  needs 
consideration  at  this  point.  The  animal  sacrifices 
are  doubtless  earlier  than  the  vegetable,  and  show 
more  characteristic  differences  of  meaning,  al- 
though vegetable  offerings  may  sometimes  be 
substituted  for  animal.  In  the  Old  Testament 
there  are  two  principal  types  of  animal  sacrifice, 
the  burnt  offering  (n^i;r)  and  the  peace  offering 
(n^T.  uh^,  D'pbK^  n^.O-  The  other  sacrifices  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  of  minor  importance  in  this 
connection,  and  need  not  be  discussed  particularly 
here.  In  the  burnt  offering  practically  the  whole 
animal  was  burnt  upon  the  altar ;  while  the  peace 
offering  was  a  sacrificial  meal — most  of  the  ani- 
mal was  eaten  in  a  sacred  meal  by  the  offerer  and 

1  Lev.  3  :  17.  'Lev.  2:11. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  ID/ 

others  associated  with  him.  The  apparent  mean- 
ing of  the  burnt  offering  was  that  of  a  gift  to 
God,  but  not  an  ordinary  gift — a  gift  to  secure  in 
some  way  the  expiation  of  sin ;  while  the  meaning 
of  the  peace  offering,  apparently,  was  the  fellow- 
ship between  men  and  God,  and  among  men,  the 
worshipers. 

These  two  types  of  sacrifice  are  found  ordi- 
narily among  the  Semitic  nations.  The  usual  sac- 
rifice among  the  Arabs  is  of  the  nature  of  the 
peace  offering.  The  other  form  of  sacrifice,  the 
burnt  offering,  is  found  in  the  case  of  human  sac- 
rifices, but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  is  found  at 
all  in  other  cases. ^  Fire  was  only  used  with  hu- 
man sacrifices.  The  altar  was  a  sacred  stone 
where  the  blood  was  applied.  If  any  sacrifices 
corresponding  to  the  burnt  offering  are  found, 
aside  from  human  sacrifices,  the  flesh  was  not 
burned  but  left  by  the  altar,  and  doubtless  eaten 
by  wild  beasts.  There  are,  however,  the  two  types 
of  Old  Testament  sacrifices,  but  the  one  corre- 
sponding to  the  burnt  offering  is  comparatively 
uncommon.  The  inscriptions  of  the  Southern 
Arabs  make  little  mention  of  sacrifices.  There  is 
thought  to  be  specific  evidence  of  the  existence  of 

^  W.  Robertson  Smith,  "  Religion  of  the  Semites,"  2d  ed.,  pp.  229, 
386. 


I08  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

the  peace  offering  with  the  name  Db^,  as  in  He- 
brew/ 

It  seems  clear  that  the  Phoenician  Carthagin- 
ians had  the  two  kinds  corresponding  quite 
closely  to  the  Old  Testament.^  The  one  corre- 
sponding to  the  Old  Testament  burnt  offering  is 
known  as  b'bD,  clearly  the  Hebrew  b')2,  an  infre- 
quent term  used  instead  of  nbij;  for  the  burnt 
offering,  meaning  whole,  holocaust.  The  one 
probably  corresponding  to  the  Old  Testament 
peace  offering  is  called  r\yy^.  Various  conjec- 
tures have  been  made  concerning  the  etymological 
significance  of  this  word,  but  none  that  seem  at 
all  conclusive.  The  disposition  of  the  flesh  corre- 
sponds partially  to  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
will  be  seen  more  fully  later.  In  the  VVd  a  por- 
tion of  the  flesh  by  weight  is  assigned  to  the 
priests;  in  the  n;^iv  certain  specified  members  of 
the  body  are  given  to  the  priests,  and  others  to  the 
offerer.  There  is  no  express  mention  of  fire  in 
these  Phoenician  inscriptions.  It  is  clearly  im- 
plied, however,  and  there  is  frequent  mention  of 
altars.  It  seems  evident  that  in  these  sacrifices 
the  portions  not  expressly  mentioned,  or  most  of 

1  Weber,   "Arabian  vor  dem  Islam,"  p.   2of;  Jeremias,   "Das  alte 
Testament  ini  Lichte  des  Alten  Orients,"  2d  ed..  p.  433. 

2  CIS.  I,  165,  167. 


AMONG   THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  IO9 

them,  are  burned.  In  that  case  all  the  h^bj  was 
burned  except  the  portion  specified  for  the  priests, 
while  it  was  comparatively  a  small  portion  of  the 
n;;iv  that  was  burned,  as  will  be  seen  more  fully. 
This  makes  a  general  correspondence  with  the 
Old  Testament.  There  is  also  mention  of  ub^  b'bD. 
It  seems  probable  that  d^k^  is  Hebrew  D^.i!?,  but  in 
what  way  it  is  used  here  is  doubtful,  since  n;^iv, 
as  has  been  indicated,  seems  to  designate  the 
sacrifice  of  which  d^:^  is  used  in  Hebrew,  and  it 
is  uncertain  in  what  way  ubi^  can  be  connected 
with  b'bD.  D^B^  Vb:D  is  evidently  used  as  a  distinct 
variety  of  sacrifice  along  with  the  other  two,  but 
it  is  apparently  subordinate,  since  it  does  not  ap- 
pear in  the  more  detailed  statements.  It  is  per- 
haps a  variety  of  the  VbD.  There  is  also  mention 
of  two  other  forms  of  sacrifice,  ^:£\if  and  nm,^  but 
these  are  evidently  subordinate  and  of  very  doubt- 
ful meaning,  the  explanation  of  Langdon  ^  being 
by  no  means  certain.  Langdon  takes  another 
word,  n^iD  in  n^iob,^  as  designating  a  holocaust. 
He  considers  it  the  same  as  the  Syriac  word  for 
holocaust.  Haupt*  compares  with  this  Syriac 
word  the  Babylonian  sacrificial  term  shumu,  to 

iCIS,  I,   i6s,  1.   II.         «JBL.  XXIII.  p.  86. 
8JBL,  XXIII,  pp.  81,  89.  *JBL,  XIX,  p.  60. 


no  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

which  he  gives  the  meaning  roasted  meat.  This 
explanation  of  n'lD  is  suggestive,  but  the  inscrip- 
tion in  which  it  is  found  is  so  exceedingly  frag- 
mentary that  no  definite  conclusion  can  be  reached 
concerning  it.  The  word  n^i  is  found  in  Phoeni- 
cian as  a  noun  as  well  as  a  verb,  but  it  has  an  al- 
together general  meaning,  being  applied  even  to 
bloodless  sacrifices. 

In  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  the  word  zihu,  the 
equivalent  of  Hebrew  n^r,  is  found  only  rarely, 
and  with  a  general  meaning,  as  in  Phoenician,  in- 
cluding bloodless  offerings.  The  corresponding 
verb  has  not  been  found.  The  word  for  animal 
sacrifice  is  niqit.  This  was  the  original  word  for 
libation  J  and  still  retains  that  meaning,  but  the  sig- 
nification has  been  broadened  so  that  it  is  the 
common  word  for  animal  sacrifice,  especially  a 
sacrificial  lamb.  So  far  as  appears  there  is  only 
one  kind  of  animal  sacrifice  among  the  Assyrians 
and  Babylonians.  This  resembles  the  burnt  of- 
fering more  than  the  peace  offering.  The  offering 
seems  to  be  entirely  given  over  to  the  god,  al- 
though the  disposition  of  it  is  quite  different  from 
the  Old  Testament  regulations.  Certain  portions, 
as  will  be  seen  more  fully  later,  were  regularly 
presented  to  the  god;  and  certain  portions  regu- 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  III 

larly  belonged  to  the  priests.  It  is  not  certain  that 
any  portions  were  burned,  but  this  seems  to  be 
clearly  presumable.  In  meaning,  also,  it  is  similar 
to  the  burnt  offering,  its  atoning  efficacy  is  con- 
spicuous, and  it  is  often  spoken  of  as  a  gift  to 
the  god. 

Concerning  the  early  idea  of  Semitic  sacrifice, 
the  relative  age  of  the  two  types,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  meaning  in  the  case  of  each,  there  is  much 
difference  of  opinion.  In  the  discussion  of  this 
matter,  special  reference  must  necessarily  be  made 
to  the  view  of  W.  Robertson  Smith,^  which  is  es- 
sentially as  follows,  according  to  the  understand- 
ing of  the  present  writer. 

The  early  Semitic  idea  of  sacrifice  rested  upon 
a  primitive  conception  of  the  relation  of  man  to 
deity.  Sacrifice  was  a  sacrificial  meal,  a  clan 
meal,  shared  by  the  god  of  the  clan  and  the  clan 
itself,  who  were  all  bound  together  by  physical 
relationship.  This  was  like  a  common  meal 
among  men  related :  it  strengthened  the  ties  exist- 
ing between  the  god  and  the  clan.  According  to 
the  conception  at  that  time,  the  food  was  actually 
eaten  by  the  god  as  well  as  by  the  men.  The  sac- 
rificial animal  was  kindred  to  the  clan  and  the  god, 

*  "  Religion  of  the  Semites,"  2d  ed.,  passim. 


112  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

i.  e.,  it  was  a  totem  animal.     Sacrifice  was  purely 
a  clan  matter,  not  an  individual  matter. 

The  early  form  of  sacrifice  was  thus  a  peace 
offering:  the  other  form  of  sacrifice,  the  burnt 
offering,  was  developed  from  it  through  the  com- 
ing in  of  the  idea  that  the  sacrifice  was  a  gift,  and 
through  the  feeling  of  the  need  of  propitiating  the 
favor  of  the  gods.  Originally  the  sacrifice  was  a 
joyous  occasion,  there  was  very  little  feeling  of 
guilt;  the  physical  relationship  of  the  god  and  his 
worshipers  made  it  unnecessary  to  do  much  by 
way  of  propitiating  him.  The  idea  of  a  gift  came 
about  probably  through  the  growth  of  individual- 
ism. In  the  early  clan  idea  there  was  very  little 
individual  ownership  of  property.  But  in  course 
of  time,  with  increasing  civilization  and  wealth, 
individual  ownership  became  common.  Gifts  to 
the  gods,  especially  of  cereals,  assumed  a  promi- 
nent position.  This  naturally  tended  to  the 
thought  that  the  animal  sacrifices  were  also  a  gift. 
The  old  totem  idea  also  became  weakened,  so  that 
the  early  force  of  the  sacrifice  was  less  strongly 
felt.  The  increase  of  civilization,  and  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  old  idea  of  physical  relationship 
to  the  god,  also  tended  to  a  cultivation  of  the 
sense  of  guilt.     From  these  various  tendencies  it 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  II3 

came  about  that  sacrifices  were  presented  fre- 
quently as  individual  gifts  for  special  sins,  or  in 
seeking  special  favors.  It  was  still  felt  that  the 
victim  was  sacred,  although  the  original  reason 
was  lost  or  obscured.  Then,  as  an  explanation  of 
this  sacredness,  arose  the  conception  that  the  vic- 
tim was  a  substitute  for  a  human  being.  With 
this  idea,  the  flesh  was  felt  to  be  too  sacred  to 
be  eaten.  Burning  the  sacrifice  was  then  prac- 
tised, simply  as  a  means  of  disposing  of  the  flesh 
without  danger  to  the  worshiper,  of  which  it  was 
dangerous  to  eat.  This  took  place  at  first  prob- 
ably outside  of  the  city  rather  than  on  the  altar. 
But  the  significance  of  the  burning  was  forgotten, 
and  another  explanation  of  it  arose.  The  early 
idea  that  the  gods  ate  flesh  like  men  gave  place 
to  a  somewhat  more  spiritual  conception  of  them, 
as  a  result  of  which  it  was  felt  that  more  ethereal- 
ized  food  was  appropriate  to  them,  i.  e.,  liquids 
and  vapor.  The  blood  was  at  first  shared  be- 
tween the  god  and  the  worshipers,  ultimately  it 
was  all  given  to  the  god.  Hence  arose  a  libation 
of  blood,  and  later  of  other  liquids.  The  original 
altar  was  a  stone  upon  which  the  blood  was 
poured  out.  The  burning  came  to  be  considered, 
like  the  libation,  a  means  of  conveying  ethereal- 


114  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ized  food  to  the  gods,  in  this  case  in  the  form  of 
smoke;  and  then  the  burning  was  transferred  to 
the  altar  where  Hquids  had  been  offered. 

But  the  peace  offering  did  not  remain  entirely 
unchanged.  The  chief  change,  however,  was  in 
reference  to  the  sacred  character  of  the  offering. 
At  first,  as  has  been  stated,  this  was  felt  to  be 
naturally  sacred,  because  a  totem  animal.  Later, 
in  the  burnt  offering,  the  sacredness  was  still  felt, 
but  was  differently  explained.  With  the  peace 
offering,  however,  the  emphasis  was  still  laid  upon 
the  sacrificial  meal,  and  the  sense  of  the  sacred- 
ness of  the  victim  was  largely  lost,  so  that  it  could 
still  be  eaten.  Doubtless  this  diminution  in  sacred- 
ness arose  chiefly  from  the  practical  necessity 
of  eating  the  sacred  animals  for  food.  The  sub- 
stitutionary idea  doubtless  did  not  enter  here,  at 
least  not  prominently.  That  is,  in  the  original 
sacrifice  two  things  were  prominent — a  sacred 
animal  and  a  common  meal ;  and  there  was  noth- 
ing contradictory  in  these  two  factors.  But  with 
the  loss  of  the  original  conception,  emphasis  on 
either  one  led  to  the  obscuration  of  the  other  ele- 
ment. Continued  emphasis  on  the  sacredness  of 
the  animal  led,  as  has  been  indicated,  to  burnt 
offering;  on  the  idea  of  the  meal,  to  the  peace 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  II5 

offering,  which  retains  in  general  the  original 
conception,  but  has  lost  the  idea  of  the  sacredness 
of  the  victim  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  still 
considered  safe  to  eat  the  flesh.  The  general 
conception  of  the  peace  offering  is  thus  fellow- 
ship; of  the  burnt  offering,  a  gift,  with  strong 
and  increasing  emphasis  upon  the  idea  of  atone- 
ment for  sin. 

Such  in  brief  is  the  view  of  W.  Robertson 
Smith.  How  far  it  can  be  accepted  in  all  its  de- 
tails is  a  question.  But  to  the  present  writer  the 
general  view  seems  probably  correct.  It  appar- 
ently accounts  for  the  facts  better  than  any  other 
view.  In  particular,  the  early  idea  of  sacrifice 
and  the  development  of  the  two  types  seem  quite 
in  accordance  with  the  habits  of  thought  of  primi- 
tive peoples. 

Two  special  forms  of  Old  Testament  sacrifices 
which  have  not  been  mentioned  should  here  be  re- 
ferred to:  the  n«Dn,  sin  offering,  and  the  nm, 
guilt  offering.  These  are  usually  considered  to 
be,  at  least  in  prominent  use,  the  latest  and  per- 
haps most  characteristic  development  of  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices.  Both  in  form  and  mean- 
ing, however,  they  are  really  developments  of  the 
burnt  offering.     They  are  very  similar  to  each 


Il6  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Other.  The  chief  variation  of  both  of  them  from 
the  ritual  of  the  burnt  offering  is  in  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  body  of  the  animal.  In  the  case  of 
the  sin  offering  the  same  portions  are  burned  on 
the  altar  as  in  the  peace  offering,  while  all  the  rest 
of  the  carcass  is  burned  without  the  city  at  the 
dumping-place  of  the  ashes.  In  the  guilt  offering 
the  portions  burned  on  the  altar  are  the  same  as  in 
the  sin  offering,  but  the  rest  all  the  priests  eat 
together  in  a  holy  place.  In  accordance  with  what 
has  been  said  concerning  the  development  of  the 
burnt  offering,  it  seems  probable  that  the  disposi- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  sin  offering  was  the  earlier 
custom  in  the  case  of  the  burnt  offering.  In  the 
case  of  the  guilt  offering,  there  appears  to  be  a 
different  development  of  the  idea  of  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  offering :  when  it  came  to  be  regarded 
as  too  sacred  for  a  common  meal,  it  was  eaten 
by  the  priests  solemnly  in  a  holy  place,  instead  of 
being  burned.  Both  treatments,  then,  it  would 
seem,  are  really  early  features,  although  per- 
haps becoming  prominent  late  in  Old  Testament 
history.  Both  emphasize  the  sacred  character 
of  the  offering,  and  thus  make  prominent  the 
idea  of  expiation,  which  they  have  in  common 
with  the  burnt  offering.     They  are,  then,  to  be 


AMONG   THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  11/ 

regarded  as  really  varieties  of  the  burnt  offering. 

A  subordinate  form  of  sacrifice  is  the  libation. 
This  is  regularly  an  accompaniment  of  other  of- 
ferings. It  was  probably  originally  of  blood,  as 
has  already  been  suggested.  There  is  no  signifi- 
cant difference  among  the  various  Semitic  nations, 
except  that  among  the  Arabs  it  was  relatively 
more  important  than  with  any  other  nation,  it 
being  there,  on  account  of  the  infrequency  of  fire 
offerings,  ordinarily  the  essential  godward  feature 
of  animal  sacrifice.  It  was  also  very  common 
among  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians. 

The  incense  offering  is  also  in  general  a  subor- 
dinate form.  This  doubtless  arose  from  the  same 
general  idea  as  that  found  in  the  later  explanation 
of  the  burning  of  sacrifices,  viz.,  that  food  was 
conveyed  to  the  gods  in  an  acceptable  ethereal- 
ized  form  in  this  way.  Incense  offering  is  found 
among  all  the  Semitic  nations,  except  the  Arabs ; 
it  is  found  among  the  Southern  Arabs.  Its  ab- 
sence among  the  Arabs  has  been  considered 
strange.  Doubtless,  however,  in  accordance  with 
what  has  just  been  said,  it  is  to  be  connected  with 
the  fact  that  fire  was  not  ordinarily  used  in  their 
sacrifices.  In  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  on  the 
other  hand,  this  form  of  offering  was  very,  com- 


Il8  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

mon,  apparently  the  most  prominent  feature  of 
the  sacrifices. 

The  bloodless  offerings,  or  meal  offerings,  may 
be  briefly  treated  here.  These  are  found  among 
all  the  Semitic  nations.  In  the  Old  Testament  they 
consist  essentially,  in  the  most  common  form,  of 
meal  and  oil  mingled.  These  elements  are  found 
in  general  among  the  other  nations,  with  some 
additions.  It  should  be  noted  that  these  offer- 
ings are  not  sacrifices  in  the  same  sense  as  the 
animal  sacrifices,  they  are  simply,  in  their  essence, 
a  form  of  tribute ;  the  common  Hebrew  word  for 
them,  nn^r?,  means  a  gift.  Their  treatment  is  in 
harmony  with  this  idea  of  tribute.  The  act  of  the 
offerer  is  simply  to  bring  them:  they  are  wholly 
given  over  to  God — a  part  is  burned  on  the  altar, 
the  rest  belongs  to  the  priests  as  a  whole,  not 
to  the  ministering  priest  alone.  They  probably 
came  originally  from  the  first-fruits.  But  they  did 
not  remain  entirely  unaffected  by  the  influence  of 
the  animal  sacrifices.  To  a  certain  extent  they 
might  be  substituted  for  animal  sacrifices  by  the 
poor.  This  was  the  case  with  the  burnt  offering 
and  sin  offering;  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  case 
of  the  guilt  offering,  although  that  would  be  ex- 
pected from  the  analogy  of  the  sin  offering.    The 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  II9 

substitution  did  not  take  place  in  the  case  of  the 
peace  offering,  evidently  because  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  the  two  were  entirely  at  variance.  When 
substituted,  however,  these  bloodless  offerings 
have  no  independent  significance  of  their  own,  but 
take  that  of  the  sacrifice  for  which  they  are  a  sub- 
stitute. 

The  showbread — twelve  loaves  placed  before 
Yahweh  and  renewed  every  week — are  a  form  of 
sacrifice.  They  have  their  parallel  in  the  similar 
custom  of  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  of  pla- 
cing loaves  before  the  gods  when  sacrificing. 
These  loaves  were  twelve  in  number  or  a  multiple 
of  twelve,  often  three  times  twelve.^  These  loaves 
in  the  Old  Testament  are  called  d^j3  ur}),  bread  of 
face;  whether  the  Babylonian  are  called  by  the 
corresponding  term  akal  panu  is  not  entirely  cer- 
tain.'^ 

Prominent  details  of  the  regulations.  The  Old 
Testament  sacrifice  of  cattle,  sheep,  or  goat  is 
usually  a  male.  This  is  demanded  in  the  case  of 
the  burnt  offering  and  the  guilt  offering,  and  also 
in  the  case  of  the  sin  offering  for  priest,  ruler,  or 
the  whole  people.    For  the  sin  offering  for  an  or- 


1  Zimmern,  "  Beitrage  sur  Kenntnis  der  Babylonischen  Religion,' 

2  See  Zimmern,  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.  600. 


p.  _9Sf. 

Si 


I20  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

dinary  individual  a  female  is  required,  while  for 
the  peace  offering  it  may  be  male  or  female.  It 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  male  is  considered 
superior,  and  so  is  insisted  upon  in  general  when 
the  special  sanctity  of  the  victim  is  in  mind.  This 
accounts  for  the  relaxation  of  the  regulation  in  the 
case  of  the  peace  offering,  but  the  isolated  excep- 
tion in  the  sin  offering  is  anomalous.  Among  the 
Babylonians,  as  well,  the  animal  was  usually  a 
male,  although  females  were  also  used.^  No 
specific  regulation  that  the  sacrifice  shall  be  a  male 
is  to  be  found  in  the  other  religions,  although 
among  the  sacrificial  animals  specified  on  the  Mar- 
seilles tablet  are  c]bK,  ox,  and  by,  ram. 

The  Old  Testament  generally  provides  that  the 
animal  for  sacrifice  shall  be  without  blemish,  D'p:i. 
The  same  provision  is  found  in  the  Babylonian 
regulations,  the  corresponding  word  being  shal- 
mii.^  This  does  not  seem  to  be  an  express  regu- 
lation in  the  material  available  among  the  other 
nations. 

The  Babylonian,  as  well  as  the  Old  Testament, 
regulations  provide  that  the  sacrifice  shall  be  sea- 
soned with  salt.^ 

1  Jeremias,   "  Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  Alien  Orients," 
2d  ed.,  p.  429. 

*  Zimmern,   KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.   598. 

*  Zimmern.  KAT.  3d  ed..  p.  598. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  121 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  blood  is  very  promi- 
nent, because  it  is  regarded  as  the  life.  This  ap- 
pears clearly  in  such  passages  as  Lev.  17  :  11: 
"  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood ;  and  I 
have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atone- 
ment for  your  souls :  for  it  is  the  blood  that  ma- 
keth  atonement  by  reason  of  the  life."  The  blood 
has  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  Old  Testament 
ritual  of  the  sacrifices.  In  the  burnt  offering, 
peace  offering,  and  guilt  offering,  it  is  sprinkled 
round  about  upon  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  ex- 
cept that  in  the  case  of  birds  in  the  burnt  offer- 
ing it  is  drained  out  upon  the  side  of  the  altar. 
In  the  case  of  the  sin  offering  for  a  priest  or  for 
the  whole  people,  the  blood  is  to  be  sprinkled 
seven  times  before  Yahweh  before  the  veil  of  the 
sanctuary,  then  some  put  upon  the  horns  of  the 
altar  of  incense,  and  the  rest  poured  out  at  the 
base  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering.  The  blood  of 
a  sin  offering  for  a  ruler  or  for  an  ordinary  per- 
son is  to  be  treated  in  the  same  way,  except  that 
the  first  part,  the  sprinkling,  is  omitted.  In  the 
case  of  a  bird  as  a  sin  offering  for  an  ordinary 
person,  however,  it  is  provided  that  the  priest 
shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  upon  the  side  of  the 
altar  of  burnt  offering,  and  drain  out  the  re- 


122  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

mainder  at  the  base  of  the  altar.  In  Arabia  the 
treatment  of  the  blood  was  the  sacrifice,  as  has  al- 
ready been  indicated.  There  it  was  poured  out 
upon  the  sacred  stone  which  formed  the  altar. 
There  is  no  express  mention  of  blood  in  the  Car- 
thaginian regulations.  In  Babylonia  the  blood 
is  evidently  of  very  minor  significance :  it  has 
been  found  mentioned  in  only  two  passages.^ 
Among  the  Canaanites  it  is  thought  that  sacrifi- 
cial blood  has  been  found  on  certain  pillars.^ 

In  the  Old  Testament  regulations  for  the  burnt 
offering  all  the  animal  except  the  skin  is  to  be 
burned  on  the  altar:  the  skin  goes  to  the  priest. 
In  the  sacrifice  of  a  bird,  however,  the  crop  and 
feathers  are  thrown  aside  and  not  burned.  In 
the  case  of  the  sin  offering,  all  the  intestinal  fat 
and  the  kidneys,  and  also  the  fat  tail  of  a  lamb, 
are  burned  on  the  altar;  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
body  is  burned  outside  the  city,  where  the  ashes 
are  poured  out.  In  the  guilt  offering,  the  por- 
tion burned  is  the  same  as  with  the  sin  offer- 
ing, while  the  flesh  is  eaten  by  all  the  priests  in  a 
holy  place.  In  the  case  of  the  peace  offering,  the 
portion  burned  is  the  same  as  with  the  sin  offer- 

iSee  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.  S99. 

sjeremias,   "Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  Alten  Orients," 
2d  ed.,  p.   317. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 23 

ing,  the  breast  and  the  right  shoulder  are,  in  P, 
the  portion  of  the  priests,  while  all  the  rest  of  the 
flesh  is  used  for  a  sacrificial  meal  by  the  offerer 
and  others. 

Among  the  Arabs,  the  burnt  offering  is  per- 
haps represented  only  by  the  human  sacrifices; 
there  the  victim  is  burned  entire.  In  their  ordi- 
nary sacrifices,  corresponding  to  the  peace  offer- 
ing, the  flesh,  without  specially  excluding  the  fat, 
is  eaten  as  a  sacrificial  meal.  Among  the  Car- 
thaginians, in  the  Marseilles  tablet,  the  priests 
receive  a  fee  of  money,  varying  according  to  the 
value  of  the  animal — the  same  for  any  kind  of 
sacrifice.  Besides  this,  in  the  b'hD,  corresponding 
to  the  burnt  offering,  the  priests  receive  a  certain 
weight  of  flesh  of  the  larger  animals,  three  hun- 
dred shekels  weight  for  an  ox,  and  one  hundred 
and  fifty  for  a  calf  or  deer.  The  rest  was  pre- 
sumably burned.  In  the  case  of  the  nj^iv,  cor- 
responding to  the  peace  offering,  the  priests  re- 
ceive certain  portions  called  rr^vp  and  nbr,  whose 
meaning  is  uncertain.  The  skin,  the  oaSiy,  mean- 
ing uncertain,  the  feet,  and  the  rest  of  the  flesh  go 
to  the  offerer.  In  another  inscription,^  the  details 
of  the  regulations  vary  considerably. 

iCIS,  I,  167. 


124  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

In  the  Babylonian  regulations  it  is  frequently 
specified  that  the  following  portions  of  the  animal 
are  to  be  given  to  the  god :  iniittu,  right  shoulder 
or  right  thigh;  hinsa,  loins;  shume,  probably 
roasted  flesh;  and  silqu,  probably  boiled  flesh. 
The  portions  that  go  to  the  priest  are  not  usu- 
ally mentioned.  In  the  inscription  of  Nabuapalid- 
din/  however,  they  are  given  as  follows :  siinu, 
loins;  mashku,  hide;  arkatu,  rump;  hiiane,  ten- 
dons ;  mishil  karshi,  half  of  the  abdominal  viscera ; 
mishit  qirbij  half  of  the  thoracic  viscera ;  two  qur- 
sinnu,  legs;  me  seri,  a  pot  of  broth.^ 

In  the  Old  Testament  regulations  it  is  generally 
specified  that  the  offerer  is  to  lay  his  hand  upon 
the  head  of  the  victim,  and  to  slay  it.  Neither  of 
these  regulations,  however,  is  given  with  the  guilt 
offering;  while  with  the  sin  offering  for  the  whole 
people  it  is  the  elders  of  the  congregation  who  lay 
on  their  hands,  and  it  is  not  specified  who  kills  the 
victim.  The  Babylonian  regulations  give  no  di- 
rections concerning  the  slaying,  but  in  one  in- 
scription it  is  specified  that  the  offerer  shall  hold 
the  sheep  that  is  sacrificed.^ 

The  meaning  of  the  sacrifices.    The  treatment 

I  Col.  V,  11.  9-1 8,  KB,  III,  I,  p.  i8of. 
«  See  Haupt,  JBL,  XIX,  p.  6o. 

•  Zimmern,   "  Beitrage  sur  Kenntnis  der  Bahylonischen  Religion,'* 
a,  11.,  74,  155,  pp.  loi,  107. 


AMONG   THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 25 

of  external  features  thus  far  shows  that  the  two 
principal  Old  Testament  sacrifices  are  found  for 
the  most  part  among  the  other  Semitic  nations, 
and  that  there  are  very  many  resemblances  in  de- 
tails. It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  there  is  great 
similarity  in  the  meaning  as  well.  The  early  mean- 
ing as  well  as  form  was  doubtless  the  same  in  all 
Semitic  sacrifices,  as  has  been  seen.  But  changes 
from  the  original  form  and  meaning  evidently 
took  place  previous  to  the  branching  off  of  any  of 
the  Semitic  nations  from  the  common  stock.  Es- 
pecially the  development  of  the  burnt  offering 
from  the  original  peace  offering,  together  with 
some  changes  in  the  latter,  were  clearly  antece- 
dent to  the  separation.  Hence  all  this  precedes 
the  distinctive  development  of  any  of  these  na- 
tions. In  the  long  course  of  the  development  of 
individual  nations,  however,  it  seems  inevitable 
that  the  meaning  as  well  as  form  has  changed  con- 
siderably. These  changes  largely  depended  upon 
the  extent  to  which  the  earlier  physical  concep- 
tion of  the  gods  had  disappeared.  It  was  no  doubt 
modified  somewhat  among  all  the  nations.  This  is 
seen,  e.  g.,  in  the  general  substitution  of  liquids  and 
smoke  for  flesh  as  the  sacrificial  food  of  the  gods. 
Inasmuch  as  the  physical  nature  of  the  gods  was 


126  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

still  accepted,  however,  to  a  certain  extent  by  all 
the  Semitic  nations,  aside  from  the  Hebrews,  it 
seems  evident  that  a  physical  conception  of  sacri- 
fice must  have  continued  to  prevail  among  all,  un- 
less the  Hebrews  are  an  exception.  That  is,  the 
sacrifices  were  still  considered  to  be  the  food  of 
the  gods,  and  their  meaning  was  based  upon  that 
idea.  The  general  meaning,  then,  among  these 
nations,  of  the  two  types  of  sacrifices  would  be 
that  already  indicated — that  the  peace  offering  ex- 
presses and  promotes  fellowship  already  existing 
with  the  gods,  the  burnt  ofifering  secures  their 
favor  which  has  been  more  or  less  interrupted  by 
sin.  There  is  really  nothing  more  definite  than 
this  in  the  teachings  of  these  nations.  The  Bab- 
ylonians evidently  gave  to  the  sacrifice  a  certain 
magical  efficacy,  in  accordance  with  the  physical 
conception,  as  the  sacrificial  ritual  was  a  part  of 
the  ritual  of  incantation.^ 

To  determine  the  Old  Testament  meaning  of 
the  sacrifices,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  their 
history  and  original  significance.  Perhaps  the 
first  question  is  whether  the  physical  conception  of 
the  effect  of  sacrifice  remains  at  all  in  the  Old 


^  See  especially  Zimmern,   "  Beitr'dge  sur  Kenntnis  der  Babyloni- 
schen  Religion,"  passim. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  12/ 

Testament.  There  is  language  used  which  seems 
to  have  that  meaning.  Not  infrequently  the  sac- 
rifices are  called  the  **  bread  of  God  "  (o^riSx  onS). 
It  is  often  said,  as  in  Gen.  8  :  21 :  "  And  Yahweh 
smelled  the  sweet  savor."  In  Ps.  50  :  I2f  Yah- 
weh refers  to  sacrifices  in  these  words  :  "  If  I  were 
hungry,  I  would  not  tell  thee;  for  the  world  is 
mine  and  the  fulness  thereof.  Will  I  eat  the  flesh 
of  bulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats?"  verses 
which  are  couched  in  physical  language,  yet  which 
repudiate  the  thought  of  sacrifices  as  the  food  of 
Yahweh.  In  the  general  Old  Testament  repre- 
sentation, however,  as  has  been  seen,  Yahweh  is 
distinctly  spiritual;  therefore,  it  is  hardly  possi- 
ble to  understand  these  phrases  as  conveying  a 
real  physical  meaning.  Hence  these  expressions 
can  naturally  be  regarded  as  partly  a  preserva- 
tion of  the  phraseology  of  an  earlier  time:  this 
seems  to  be  especially  true  of  language  like  the 
"  bread  of  God."  Partly  also,  doubtless,  they  are 
to  be  regarded  as  anthropomorphism  which  is  in- 
separable from  any  representation  of  God,  and 
which  would  be  suggested  by  the  nature  of  sacri- 
fice. 

If,   however,    the  physical   conception   of  the 
sacrifices  has  been  lost  among  the  Hebrews,  what 


128  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

is  the  meaning  which  they  retain  ?  It  is  probable 
that  the  general  meaning  has  been  retained.  That 
is,  the  peace  offering  expresses  and  promotes  fel- 
lowship with  Yahweh;  the  burnt  offering  is  a  gift 
by  which  his  favor  is  obtained,  which  had  been 
lost  by  sin.  The  peace  offering  differs  but  very 
slightly  from  the  corresponding  sacrifices  among 
the  Arabs  and  Carthaginians.  The  burnt  offer- 
ing, also,  has  the  same  general  meaning  as  the 
corresponding  sacrifice  among  the  Arabs,  Cartha- 
ginians, and  Babylonians.  If  there  is  any  mate- 
rial difference  it  is  in  a  greater  emphasis  in  the 
Old  Testament  upon  the  expiation  of  sin.  Two 
things  are  sometimes  thought  to  indicate  this. 
One  is  the  existence  of  the  sin  offering  and  guilt 
offering,  which  are  thought  to  be  a  late  develop- 
ment, carrying  the  idea  of  expiation  for  sin  to  a 
higher  point  than  the  burnt  offering.  But  the 
details  of  the  ritual  of  these  two  offerings,  as  al- 
ready indicated,  in  their  variation  from  the  burnt 
offering,  present  features  that  are  early  rather 
than  late.  Hence,  whatever  the  time  of  their  his- 
torical appearance,  they  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
developments  from  the  burnt  offering,  and  thus 
a  higher  form  of  that;  but  rather  as  collateral 
variations  in  the  general  development  of  the  burnt- 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 29 

offering  type  of  sacrifice,  and  hence  of  no  greater 
significance,  so  far  as  the  expiation  of  sin  is  con- 
cerned, than  the  burnt  offering  itself.  The  other 
thing  is  the  relatively  great  importance  of  the 
blood  in  the  Old  Testament  ritual,  which  has 
already  been  noted  in  general.  Expiation  of  sins 
is  specifically  assigned  to  the  blood,  as  in  Lev. 
17  :  11:''  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood ; 
and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make 
atonement  for  your  souls :  for  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  atonement  by  reason  of  the  life."  Yet  the 
treatment  of  the  blood  v^as  the  same  in  the  peace 
offering  and  the  burnt  offering,  v^hile  it  is  only  in 
a  very  general  way,  in  connection  with  other  sac- 
rifices, that  atonement  is  attributed  to  the  peace 
offering,  not  when  it  is  treated  specifically  by  it- 
self. It  seems  evident  that  the  blood  is  not 
thought  of  as  an  isolated  matter  entirely,  but 
rather  that  the  type  of  sacrifice  is  thought  of  as  a 
whole,  although  its  atoning  ef^cacy  is  due  to  the 
blood.  It  is  doubtful,  therefore,  if  the  emphasis 
upon  the  blood  is  to  be  regarded  as  indicating  a 
materially  greater  emphasis  upon  the  expiation  of 
sin  than  is  to  be  found  elsewhere.  It  seems  more 
probable  that  the  expiation,  which  in  the  other 
Semitic  religions  is  attributed  in  general  to  the 


130  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

life,  is  here  specially  connected  with  the  blood,  as 
the  seat  of  life. 

The  expiation  of  sin  is  regularly  expressed  in 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  word  nas.  This  word 
is  used  several  times  of  the  burnt  offering,  al- 
though more  frequently  of  the  sin  offering  and 
guilt  offering.  This  word  -)f3  means  in  some 
way  to  make  atonement  for  sin.  Besides  its 
use  in  the  ritual  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
connection  with  sacrifice,  it  is  used  in  the  non- 
ritual  portions  with  no  relation  to  them,  as  will  be 
seen.  In  the  ritual  use,  the  priest  is  usually  the 
subject  of  the  verb,  and  it  is  followed  by  a  preposi- 
tion governing  ordinarily  the  person  affected, 
while  the  sacrifices  are  spoken  of  as  the  means. 
Thus  it  is  said  that  the  officiating  priest  makes 
atonement  for  some  one  by  means  of  sacrifice. 
The  sins  for  which  atonement  is  made  are  also 
sometimes  mentioned.  This  word  is  used,  with 
the  same  general  meaning  as  in  Hebrew,  in  Bab- 
ylonian, Aramaic,  and  Arabic,  all  in  the  intensive 
stem.  There  are  two  prevalent  views  concerning 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word.  One  is  that 
it  was  to  cover,  hide,  which  is  the  meaning  of  the 
Arabic  w^ord  in  the  simple  stem.  The  other  view 
is  that  it  was  to  zvash  azvay,  which  is  the  meaning 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I3I 

of  the  Syriac  word  in  the  simple  stem,  and  is  also 
found  as  a  meaning  of  the  Babylonian/  The 
occurrence  of  the  latter  meaning  in  the  two  lan- 
guages, Babylonian  and  Syriac,  gives  a  presump- 
tion in  favor  of  that  as  the  original  meaning  of 
the  root.  This  meaning  also  makes  it  easier  to 
think  of  some  tangible  idea  as  in  mind  in  the  use 
of  the  word,  and  to  trace  the  development  of 
thought,  and  is  probably  to  be  accepted.  Mention 
should  also  be  made,  however,  of  the  view  often 
held  that  n?3  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  denominative 
from  n?3,  ransom.^  This  does  not  take  into  ac- 
count sufficiently  the  Babylonian  usage,  and  in 
general  seems  less  in  accord  with  primitive  ideas 
than  the  view  here  presented.  The  view  of 
Schrank  ^  that  the  early  meaning  of  the  Babylo- 
nian word  was  of  a  medical  nature,  to  besmear 
("bestreichen  "),  seems  based  upon  no  sufficient 
evidence,  although  there  may  be  a  distinct  root 
having  some  such  meaning.  The  origin  of  the 
usage  before  us,  then,  on  the  view  accepted,  was  in 
the  thought  of  washing  away  ritual  uncleanness, 
which  was  done  at  first  by  water  in  the  purifica- 

1  See  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.  601;  Morgenstern,  "The  Doctrine  of  Sin  in 
the   Babylonian   Religion,"  p,   44. 

2  As,  e.  g.,  in  Siegfried  und  Stade,  Hebraisches  Worterhuch;  H.  P. 
Smith,  AJTh,  X,  p.  412;  J.  M.  P.  ^mith,  "Biblical  World,"  XXXI, 
p.   26  seq. 

^"  Babylonische  Sithnriten."  p.   81   seq. 


132  THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

tion  ceremonies;  and  then  the  appHcatlon  was 
broadened  to  include  any  ceremony  for  ritual 
purification.  This  is  the  meaning  which  the  word 
has  regularly  in  the  Babylonian  ritual  tablets,  to 
wash  away  ceremonial  uncleanness.  In  the  Old 
Testament  ritual  use,  also,  the  meaning  is  sub- 
stantially the  same.  In  these  passages  sin  is 
thought  of  as  of  a  ritual  nature,  and  it  is  the  re- 
moval of  sin  as  uncleanness  that  is  in  mind.  Hence, 
in  the  use  before  us,  in  connection  with  sacrifices, 
the  word  has  a  ritual  significance;  it  denotes  the 
removal  of  ritual  sin,  regarded  as  uncleanness. 

It  is  sometimes  thought  that  the  Hebrew  193, 
at  least  in  its  ritual  use,  has  been  borrowed  from 
the  Babylonian  kuppuru.  Thus  Zimmern  speaks 
of  "  dieses  im  babylonischen  Silhneritual  als  ter- 
minus technictis  verwendte  kuppuru'*  and  says 
"  Weiter  aber  ist  sehr  wahrscheinlich,  das  hebr. 
'^^2,  wenigstens  als  speciHsch  kultustechnischer 
Ausdruck  in  der  Bed.  '  siihnen^  nichf  genuin  he- 
brdisch  ist,  sondern  erst  auf  Grund  des  babylon- 
ischen kidtustechnischen  Gebrauches  von  kuppuru 
in  Aufnahine  gekommen  ist."  ^  But  this  is  improb- 
able. There  seems  no  reason  to  separate  materially 
between  the  ritual  and  non-ritual  meanings  of 

1  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.  6oif. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 33 

133,  and  there  is  no  question  that  the  word,  at 
least  in  the  non-ritual  use,  was  employed  before 
the  Babylonian  exile,  at  which  time  the  borrow- 
ing could  most  naturally  take  place. 

Is  it  a  Semitic  teaching  that  the  victim  in  sac- 
rifice is  a  substitute  for  a  human  being,  the  guilty 
party?  The  most  definite  statement  of  this  idea 
is  found  among  the  Babylonians.  Thus  it  is 
said,^  ''  The  lamb,  the  object  of  exchange  for  a 
man,  the  lamb  he  [the  priest]  gives  for  his  life. 
The  head  of  the  lamb  he  gives  for  the  head  of 
the  man,  the  neck  of  the  lamb  he  gives  for  the 
neck  of  the  man,  the  breast  of  the  lamb  he  gives 
for  the  breast  of  the  man."  Similar  statements  are 
found  elsewhere.^  This,  however,  is  no  regular 
part  of  the  sacriiicial  ritual,  and  would  seem  to 
have  no  prominent  place  in  the  Babylonian  mean- 
ing of  the  sacrifice.  The  detailed  identification, 
further,  suggests  that  we  have  here  a  development 
along  the  line  of  magic,  suggested  by  the  common 
ideas  of  witchcraft,  in  which  actions  of  the  witch 
or  the  one  performing  an  incantation  against  a 
witch  affected  the  particular  part  involved  in  the 
action. 

1  See  KAT,  3d  ed.,  p.   S97. 

2  See    especially    Jeremias,    "  Das   Alte    Testament   im    Lichte   des 
Alien  Orients,"  2d  ed.,  p.  368f. 


134  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

In  the  Old  Testament  there  is  no  clear  statement 
of  substitution.  The  emphasis  upon  the  blood, 
as  atoning  by  virtue  of  the  life,  is  sometimes 
thought  to  suggest  it,  as  indicating  that  the  blood 
represents  the  life  given  for  the  life  of  the  man. 
The  force  of  this  argument  is  weakened,  however, 
by  the  fact  that  the  specific  offenses  for  which 
sacrifices  are  offered  are  not  those  for  which 
there  is  a  death  penalty,  but  less  serious  offenses. 
Another  argument  is  drawn  from  some  state- 
ments about  the  sin  offering.  The  treatment  of 
the  sin  offering  on  the  day  of  Atonement  seems 
to  indicate  that  it  was  regarded  as  very  similar 
to  the  goat  ''  for  Azazel,"  see  especially  Lev.  i6  : 
26  in  comparison  with  ver.  28.  The  goat  "  for 
Azazel,"  however,  was  regarded  as  bearing  the 
sins  of  the  people  (Lev.  16  :  21),  which  is 
thought  to  make  it  probable  that  the  sin  offering 
was  so  regarded,  and  hence  as  a  substitute  for 
man.  The  argument,  however,  is  indirect  and 
uncertain. 

Substitution  appears  in  the  case  of  the  ram 
offered  in  place  of  Isaac,  and  also  in  the  redemp- 
tion of  firstborn  sons,  although  the  latter  prac- 
tice is  not  definitely  sacrificial.  The  former  case 
is  exceptional,  and  doubtless  to  be  connected  with 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I35 

the  prevailing  ideas  in  reference  to  human  sacri- 
fices. The  Old  Testament,  then,  has  no  clear 
teaching  that  the  sacrifice  is  substitutionary,  and 
the  meaning  of  the  sacrifices  is  really  opposed  to 
that  idea. 

Wherever  human  sacrifices  are  found,  they 
doubtless  show  that  animal  sacrifices  are  regarded 
as  substitutes  for  human  beings,  human  sacrifice 
being  offered  as  the  most  efficacious  sacrifice.  In 
the  Semitic  world,  human  sacrifices  were  espe- 
cially common  among  the  Canaanites.^  The  sub- 
stitutionary idea,  as  has  already  been  noted,  is  a 
late  idea  in  the  development  of  the  sacrifices,  hav- 
ing nothing  to  do  with  their  fundamental  signifi- 
cance. 

There  remains  for  consideration  the  meaning 
of  the  Old  Testament  sin  offering  and  guilt  offer- 
ing. The  general  meaning  of  these,  as  has  already 
been  indicated,  is  probably  the  same  as  of  the 
burnt  offering,  so  that  really  they  are  only  varie- 
ties of  that.  In  statement  they  are  more  directly 
connected  with  the  removal  of  sin  and  iniquity  than 
is  the  burnt  offering.  The  details  of  the  ritual,  so 
far  as  they  pertain  to  the  disposition  of  the  flesh, 
can  hardly  be  considered  to  give  a  fundamentally 

^  Sellin,  "Die  Ertrag  der  Ausgrahungen  im  Orient,"  p.  28  seq. 


136  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

different  meaning  from  that  of  the  burnt  offering, 
as  has  been  indicated.  The  treatment  of  the  blood 
in  the  guilt  offering  is  the  same  as  in  the  burnt 
offering.  The  variation  in  reference  to  the  blood 
in  the  sin  offering  probably  has  no  great  signifi- 
cance, except  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  before 
Yahweh  in  front  of  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary, 
which  evidently  is  to  be  thought  of  as  bringing  the 
atoning  efficacy  of  the  blood  more  directly  before 
Yahweh.  This  fact,  and  also  the  more  frequent 
use  of  ns3  in  connection  with  the  sin  offering  and 
guilt  offering  than  with  the  burnt  offering,  may 
indicate  variations  from  the  burnt  offering  in  the 
direction  of  greater  intensity  in  atoning  efficacy; 
but  that  difference  in  significance,  if  any,  is  slight. 
The  scope  of  these  two  sacrifices  is  somewhat 
different  from  that  of  the  burnt  offering.  Both 
have  reference  in  general  to  specific  offenses, 
while  apparently  the  burnt  offering  is  for  sins 
which  are  not  known  specifically.  It  is  reasonably 
clear  that  the  guilt  offering  is  for  sins  for  which 
reparation  can  be  made  to  the  injured  party;  while 
the  sin  offering  is  for  cases  where  such  reparation 
cannot  be  made,  including  some  ceremonial  of- 
fenses. But  this  recognition  of  specific  individual 
sins  as  such  does  not  mark  any  great  advance  in 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 37 

the  idea  of  sin  beyond  the  more  general  acknowl- 
edgment of  sinfulness  and  sinful  acts  found  in 
the  burnt  offering. 

The  relation  of  sacrifices  to  the  nation  and  the 
individual  should  be  noted.  In  its  early  signifi- 
cance, as  we  have  seen,  sacrifice  was  a  clan  matter. 
Later  the  individual  idea  arose,  especially  in  con- 
nection with  the  type  of  sacrifice  represented 
by  the  burnt  offering.  The  peace  offering  re- 
tained generally  its  communal  character.  It  was 
not,  however,  necessarily  a  clan  matter,  but  in  its 
very  nature  it  did  imply  that  the  sacrificial  meal 
was  shared  by  a  group :  it  did  not  become  fully  an 
individual  thing,  although  often  brought  by  an 
individual.  The  burnt  offering  and  sin  offering 
among  the  Hebrews  might  be  for  the  nation  or 
for  individuals;  the  guilt  offering,  so  far  as  ap- 
pears, was  only  individual.  Among  the  other 
Semitic  nations,  also,  it  is  reasonably  clear  that 
the  burnt  offering  might  be  either  individual  or 
national.  The  Carthaginian  regulations  are  not 
very  explicit;  they  imply,  however,  individual  of- 
ferings in  speaking  of  the  offerer  (nar  hy^),  in 
relation  probably  to  each  class  of  sacrifices.  That 
there  were  also  community  sacrifices  of  some  kind 
may  be  presumed.     Among  the  Babylonians  the 


138  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

daily  sacrifices,  at  any  rate,  were  clearly  commu- 
nity sacrifices.  That  there  were  also  individual 
sacrifices  is  shown  by  the  ritual,  which  speaks  of 
the  offerer  {hel  niqe).  In  Babylonia,  however, 
it  seems  evident  that  the  sacrificial  ritual  often  had 
in  mind  the  king,  as  head  of  the  State,  for  he  is 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  ritual  tablets  as  the 
object  of  the  rites. 

So  far  as  has  yet  been  stated,  then,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  sacrifices  to  individuals  or  communi- 
ties was  similar  among  all  the  Semitic  nations. 
In  another  point,  however,  the  Hebrew  conception 
differed  greatly  from  the  thought  elsewhere,  al- 
though based  upon  the  common  conception.  Sac- 
rifice, we  have  seen,  is  essentially  a  clan  matter; 
every  one  partaking  of  it  is  of  necessity  a  member 
of  the  clan  in  good  standing.  When  the  burnt 
offering  has  been  developed,  the  fundamental  po- 
sition is  still  the  same;  it  is  a  clan  matter  in  this 
sense,  that  only  a  member  of  the  clan  has  a  right 
to  offer  it.  The  sins  for  which  the  atoning  sacri- 
fice is  offered  are  not  sufficiently  serious  to  im- 
pair one's  relation  to  the  clan  and  to  the  god  of 
the  clan :  if  they  were  sufficient  for  that,  sacri- 
fice could  not  atone  for  them.  In  this  early  con- 
ception, the  sins  which  did  thus  affect  one's  stand- 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I39 

ing  in  the  dan  were  serious  offenses  directed 
against  it,  materially  injuring  the  life  of  the  clan. 
One  who  had  committed  a  sin  of  this  kind  had 
forfeited  his  right  as  a  member  of  the  clan;  only- 
two  courses  were  then  possible,  death  or  banish- 
ment. In  harmony  with  these  ideas,  we  find  that 
among  the  Arabs  the  killing  of  a  fellow-tribesman 
was  the  great  sin.  This,  even  if  unintentional, 
was  punished  by  death  or  expulsion  from  the 
tribe.  ^  These  general  ideas  have  been  expanded 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  relation  of  the  He- 
brews is  not  that  of  natural  consanguinity  with 
Yahweh,  but  they  are  in  covenant  relation  with 
him.  The  sacrifices  presuppose  the  covenant  re- 
lation, and  they  are  only  for  those  in  good  stand- 
ing in  this  relation.  The  sins  for  which  they  atone 
are  sins  that  do  not  seriously  affect  this  covenant 
relation,  and  their  effect  is  fully  to  restore  one's 
standing  in  the  theocracy.  They  have  to  do,  then, 
with  the  individual  in  his  national  relation,  not 
with  the  individual  purely  as  such. 

But  the  early  conception  of  the  difference  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  sins  has  been  materially 
modified  and  developed  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  serious  sins  here  are  not  sins  against  the  tribe 

1  W.  Robertson  Smith,  "  Religion  of  the  Semites,"  2d  ed.,  p.  420. 


I40  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

in  which  a  common  physical  Hfe  with  the  god  is 
seen,  they  are  sins  against  the  God  of  the  cove- 
nant, sins  which  vitally  affect  one's  relation  to 
Yahweh.  These  are  sins  of  deliberate  purpose, 
sins  which  show  rebellion  against  God;  for  such 
sins  the  sacrifices  make  no  provision.  This  dis- 
tinction is  most  clearly  stated  in  certain  passages 
of  P,  especially  in  Num.  15  :  27-31.  Here  the 
sins  of  deliberate  purpose  for  which  the  sacrifices 
make  no  provision  are  characterized  as  done 
"  with  a  high  hand,"  hd-^  T3.  The  sins  for  which 
the  sacrifices  make  provision  are  sins  done  "  un- 
wittingly," njjB^3.  This  actually  means  by  mis- 
take, error.  Its  real  significance  evidently  is, 
sins  done  through  ignorance,  inadvertence,  or  or- 
dinary human  frailty,  which  do  not  show  a  de- 
liberate departure  from  God.  The  sins  for  which 
the  burnt  offering,  sin  offering,  and  guilt  offer- 
ing are  offered  are  sins  described  as  of  the  latter 
kind,  done  unwittingly.  Here  are  included  ordi- 
narily all  ritual  sins,  as  well  as  minor  ethical  sins. 
The  sins  committed  with  a  high  hand  leave  one 
directly  in  relation  with  God,  to  be  dealt  with  in 
punishment  or  mercy.  For  such  sins  the  ordinary 
punishment  was  death,  inflicted  by  God,  which  is 
undoubtedly  meant  by  the  phrase  in  Num.  15  : 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I4I 

30,  "  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his 
people."  This  limitation  of  the  sphere  of  effi- 
cacy of  sacrifices,  while  in  principle  recognized 
from  early  times,  yet  practically  goes  far  beyond 
any  limitations  among  the  other  Semitic  nations, 
and  is  a  most  significant  fact  in  relation  to  Old 
Testament  sacrifice. 


Ill 


SALVATION  THROUGH  INCANTATION 

THE  subject  of  this  chapter  is  one  concerning 
which  there  is  teaching  only  in  the  Baby- 
lonian ritual,  not  in  that  of  the  Arabs  or  Cartha- 
ginians, so  far  as  material  is  available.  In  the 
Old  Testament  there  is  not  merely  the  absence  of 
teaching,  but  direct  prohibition  of  such  things,  as 
will  be  seen. 

In  Babylonia  incantation  is  very  conspicuous. 
The  general  conception  is  that  there  are  many 
subordinate  evil  spirits,  demons,  who  are  to  be 
called  evil  simply  in  the  sense  that  they  are  malev- 
olent toward  men.  These  cause  sickness,  dis- 
aster, and  death.  They  are,  of  course,  less  power- 
ful than  the  gods  in  the  fuller  sense,  so  that  in  a 
general  way  they  are  somewhat  under  the  control 
of  the  latter.  The  incantations  are  addressed, 
therefore,  both  to  the  demons  themselves  and  to 
the  gods.  The  incantation  to  the  demon,  if  done 
in  the  right  way,  has  a  direct  magical  power  to 

deliver  the  individual  from  his  power.     The  in- 
142 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  I43 

cantation  to  the  god,  if  correctly  performed,  neces- 
sarily enlists  his  aid  in  overcoming  the  power  of 
the  demon.  These  incantations  were  doubtless 
an  early  part  of  the  religious  literature  at  all  the 
temples,  and  hence  contained  references  to  vari- 
ous gods  in  different  regions.  The  incantation 
texts  that  have  been  found,  however,  show  to  a 
larger  extent  than  the  other  religious  literature 
the  result  of  the  combining  of  material  from  dif- 
ferent places,  since  they  often  enumerate  very 
many  distinct  gods,  although  some  of  the  gods 
seem  to  be  more  prominent  than  others  in  this  in- 
cantation literature.  This  literature  stands  also 
in  close  connection  with  the  sacrificial  ritual,  and 
with  prayers  and  hymns.  That  is,  to  most,  if  not 
all,  religious  acts  there  was  given  to  some  extent 
a  magical  power;  if  properly  performed,  they 
had  a  necessary  value.  The  prayers,  psalms,  and 
hymns  have  ordinarily  some  words  indicating 
their  magical  use.  It  seems  probable,  however, 
that  this  is  often  a  later  addition,  adapting  to  such 
use  a  composition  originally  not  so  intended.  It 
cannot  be  afifirmed,  therefore,  that  all  approach  to 
the  gods  by  the  Babylonians  was  along  the  lines 
either  of  sacrifice  or  incantation;  but  this,  at  any 
rate,  was  usually  the  case.    In  general,  therefore, 


144  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

it  would  seem  that  salvation  by  incantation  was 
the  most  popular  and  efficacious  method  in  the 
estimation  of  the  Babylonians.  The  Babylonian 
conception  of  sin,  already  discussed,  needs  to  be 
kept  in  mind  in  this  connection.  Sin  was  to  be 
determined  by  its  results ;  it  was  disaster  of  some 
kind  that  indicated  that  sin  had  been  committed. 
The  conception  of  sin  was  thus  external,  and  its 
removal  could  be  effected  by  superficial  means  as 
well.  Sin  was  known  by  its  effects ;  to  remove  the 
effects  was  to  remove  the  sin.  But  this  conception 
left  the  determination  of  the  sin  an  uncertain 
matter,  and  also  the  determination  of  the  god  or 
spirit  that  was  directly  affected  by  the  sin,  and 
hence  had  caused  the  misfortune.  This  made  the 
incantations  vague  and  comprehensive.  They 
consist  largely  of  enumeration  of  all  conceivable 
sins,  and  calling  upon  all  possible  gods  and  spirits 
for  relief.  Jastrow  says,^  "  The  enumeration  of 
the  causes  for  the  suffering  constitutes  in  fact  a 
part  of  the  incantation.  The  mention  of  the  real 
cause  in  the  long  list — and  the  list  aims  to  be  ex- 
haustive, so  that  the  exorciser  may  strike  the  real 
cause — goes  a  long  way  toward  ensuring  the  de- 
parture of  the  evil  spirit.     And  if,  besides  stri- 

*  *•  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  292. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 45 

king  the  real  cause,  the  exerciser  is  fortunate 
enough  in  his  enumeration  of  the  various  gods, 
goddesses,  and  spirits  to  call  by  name  upon 
the  right  god  or  spirit,  the  one  who  has  the 
power  over  the  demon  in  question,  his  object  is 
achieved." 

The  attitude  of  the  Old  Testament  toward  all 
this  is  that  none  of  its  teaching  suggests  any  such 
way  of  salvation,  through  incantation.  It  has 
been  thought  that  certain  details  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament regulations  embody  practices  which  have 
a  somewhat  magical  cast,  as,  e.  g.,  the  bitter  water 
of  jealousy,  and  doubtless  this  should  be  granted. 
But  these  are  only  minor  details,  and  do  not  rep- 
resent the  fully  developed  Old  Testament  teach- 
ing. In  general,  the  Old  Testament  directly  dis- 
approves of  everything  of  the  kind.  This  finds 
emphatic  expression  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy.  There  eleven  classes  of  magical 
workers  are  mentioned  and  their  practices  forbid- 
den. It  is  said  (Deut.  i8  :  12,  14),  "For  who- 
soever doeth  these  things  is  an  abomination  unto 
Jehovah."  "  For  these  nations,  that  thou  shalt 
dispossess,  hearken  unto  them  that  practise  au- 
gury, and  unto  diviners ;  but  as  for  thee,  Jehovah 
thv  God  hath  not  suffered  thee  so  to  do." 


IV 

SALVATION  IN  OTHER  WAYS 

IN  teaching  salvation  apart  from  the  ways  al- 
ready mentioned,  the  Old  Testament  stands 
practically  alone,  here  going  beyond  any  teach- 
ings of  the  other  Semitic  religions.  It  is  prob- 
able, as  has  already  been  mentioned,  that  some  of 
the  Babylonian  prayers  were  composed  as  the  ex- 
pression of  a  direct  appeal  for  divine  help  and 
favor;  but  generally  such  appeals  had  a  magical 
use.  And,  of  course,  in  all  the  religions,  gifts  to 
the  gods  were  a  regular  feature.  But  these  gifts 
were  largely  regarded  as  fulfilling  one's  obliga- 
tions to  deity,  and  were  not  directly  a  means  of 
securing  favor  so  much  as  their  absence  pro- 
voked divine  displeasure.  Also,  in  their  efficacy, 
they  are  to  be  considered  as  similar  to  sacrifices, 
inasmuch  as  these  have  come  to  be  considered 
gifts.  But,  generally,  neither  direct  prayers  nor 
gifts  can  avail  in  the  removal  of  the  barrier  be- 
tween gods  and  men  caused  by  sin.     Hence  the 

general  statement  will  hold  that  among  the  Sem- 
146 


AMONG   THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 47 

itic  nations,  aside  from  the  Hebrews,  ordinarily 
salvation  came  only  through  sacrifice  or  magic. 

In  order  to  gain  an  adequate  idea  of  the  Old 
Testament  conception  of  salvation  apart  from 
sacrifice,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  matter 
somewhat  fully,  and  with  reference  to  the  de- 
velopment of  thought  in  the  Old  Testament.  This 
Old  Testament  teaching  is  closely  connected  with 
the  limitation  in  the  scope  of  sacrifice  already 
mentioned,  that  sins  done  by  inadvertence,  najB'a, 
could  be  atoned  for  by  sacrifice,  but  for  other  sins 
done  with  a  high  hand,  non  t3,  no  provision  ex- 
isted in  the  sacrificial  system.  This  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  sins  was  true  alike  of 
national  sins  and  individual  sins.  But  the  distinc- 
tion, as  has  been  indicated,  is  fully  formulated 
only  in  P.  In  the  early  chapters  of  Leviticus,  sins 
of  inadvertence  are  several  times  referred  to; 
while  both  classes  of  sins  are  spoken  of  in  their 
relation  in  Num.  15  :  22-31.  Before  comparing 
this  teaching  with  that  of  other  portions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  it  will  be  well  to  refer  briefly  to 
the  age  of  this  teaching.  It  is  now  frequently 
held  that  P,  not  only  in  time  of  composition  but 
in  substance  of  teaching,  is  postexilic,  belonging 
to  the  time  shortly  before  Nehemiah.     In  har- 


148  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

mony  with  this  idea,  it  is  also  held  that  the  post- 
exilic  period  was  characterized  by  a  regard  for 
sacrificial  and  ritual  observances  that  went  far 
beyond  anything  in  preexilic  times.  It  is  no  part 
of  the  purpose  of  the  writer  to  discuss  the  time  of 
composition  of  P.  It  is,  however,  proper  to  say 
that  in  his  view  a  considerable  portion,  at  any  rate, 
of  the  material  in  P  must  be  preexilic,  including 
much  of  the  sacrificial  material.  The  testimony  of 
the  preexilic  prophets  indicates  a  prominence  of 
sacrifices  in  the  popular  mind  certainly  not  ex- 
ceeded by  anything  after  the  exile.  And  surely 
a  great  prominence  of  ritual  ideas  in  early  times 
would  be,  it  seems,  inevitable  in  view  of  the  pre- 
dominance of  such  ideas  in  the  early  Semitic  con- 
ceptions. The  teaching  of  P  everywhere  that  the 
sacrifice  was  efficacious  as  an  opus  operatum  seems 
far  more  like  an  early  Old  Testament  teaching 
than  like  one  of  the  latest,  after  prophets  and 
psalmists  had  emphasized  the  importance  of  moral 
acts,  and  even  of  the  inner  life.  In  relation  to  the 
specific  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  sins 
that  is  before  us,  it  seems  inevitable  that  in  sub- 
stance it  must  have  been  held  from  an  early 
period  of  the  distinctive  Hebrew  development. 
We  have  already  seen  that  in  principle  it  is  in 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 49 

harmony  with  the  early  Semitic  ideas.  And  it  is 
clear  that  there  was  some  limitation  to  the  efficacy 
of  sacrifice.  This  is  seen  nationally,  e.  g.,  in  the 
incident  of  the  golden  calf  (Exod.  32),  for  the 
most  part  assigned  to  E.  Here,  in  the  case  of 
national  rebellion  against  Yahweh,  there  is  no 
thought  of  sacrifice ;  the  sin  was  followed  first  by 
punishment  and  then  by  mercy  and  forgiveness. 
In  an  individual  application,  it  is  seen  in  the  case 
cited  in  Exod.  21  :  14,  in  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant, "  If  a  man  come  presumptuously  upon  his 
neighbor,  to  slay  him  with  guile ;  thou  shalt  take 
him  from  mine  altar,  that  he  may  die."  Here  the 
thought  is  doubtless  chiefly  of  the  altar  as  a  sanc- 
tuary, but  that  in  itself  clearly  implies  that  a  sac- 
rifice upon  the  altar  would  be  of  no  avail  to  win 
the  favor  of  Yahweh. 

On  the  various  grounds  assigned,  then,  it  seems 
reasonably  clear  to  the  writer  that  the  distinction 
in  the  treatment  of  the  two  classes  of  sins,  stated 
explicitly  in  Num.  15,  is  one  which,  in  substance, 
was  known  from  an  early  period  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  and  which  was  therefore  familiar  to 
the  Old  Testament  writers  generally.  This  early 
conception,  it  may  be  repeated,  was  that  the  sacri- 
fices atoned  only  for  sins  of  ignorance  or  inad- 


150  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

vertence  of  nation  or  individual,  but  atoned  for 
these  necessarily.  They  did  not  directly  regard 
the  attitude  of  mind  of  the  offerer,  although 
something  was  implied  concerning  this  by  the 
fact  that  he  was  in  covenant  relation  with  God. 
For  sins  done  with  a  high  hand,  prompted  by  re- 
bellion against  Yahweh,  no  atonement  through 
sacrifice  was  possible ;  these  put  one  outside  of  the 
covenant,  the  regular  punishment  being  death: 
"  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  peo- 
ple "  (Num.  15  :  30).  Death  was  not  inflicted, 
however,  by  ordinary  human  instrumentality,  but 
by  the  direction  of  God  or  his  special  visitation, 
as  in  the  incident  cited  (Exod.  32;  see  also  Num. 
15  •  32-36;  and  25).^  But  even  in  these  cases 
mercy  was  often  extended,  sometimes  after  pun- 
ishment, and  sometimes  without  it,  as  many  events 
in  the  national  history  indicate.  The  distinction 
between  the  two  classes  of  sins,  while  rigid  in 
principle,  was  doubtless  somewhat  elastic  in  ap- 
plication ;  L  e.,  no  exhaustive  classification  is  any- 
where made  of  the  sins  which  belong  in  the  two 
categories  respectively. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  attitude  of  the  pro- 


1  See  especially  the  discussion  of  Davidson,  "  The  Theology  of  the 
Old  Testament,"  p.  323. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I5I 

phetic  writings,  the  psalms,  and  the  wisdom  litera- 
ture toward  sacrifice.  For  the  sake  of  clearness  it 
may  be  summarily  stated  at  this  point  that,  in  the 
writer's  view,  their  attitude  does  not  differ  greatly 
from  that  already  indicated.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  sins  appears  clearly,  and 
a  recognition  of  this  helps  greatly  in  understand- 
ing the  apparently  contradictory  statements.  Be- 
yond this,  it  is  principally  to  be  noted  that  sacri- 
fices are  often  spoken  of  favorably  in  a  general 
way  as  an  established  institution,  more  especially 
with  a  national  reference.  There  is  no  thought  of 
their  abolition ;  in  fact,  the  existence  and  prosperity 
of  the  nation  imply  sacrifice,  the  daily  sacrifices 
being  prominently  in  mind.  In  this  generally 
favorable  way,  as  a  national  institution,  sacrifices 
are  mentioned  in  Hosea  3  :  4;  9  :  4;  Jer.  33  : 
18;  Isa.  43  :  23f;  Mai.  i  :  7-10;  3  :  3f ;  Joel  i  : 
9,  13;  2  :  14;  Dan.  9  :  2y\  Ps.  51  :  19;  66  :  13, 
15;  96  :  8.  Individual  offerings  are  spoken  of, 
but  in  the  same  general  way  as  an  established  in- 
stitution, in  Isa.  19  :  21;  Jer.  17  :  26;  33  :  11; 
Prov.  7  :  14;  17  :  i.  They  are  spoken  of  with 
distinct  approval  in  Ezek.  20  :  40;  Isa.  56  :  7; 
Ps.  54  :  6;  56  :  12;  107  :  22;  116  :  17;  118  : 
27;  in  most  cases  with  special  reference  to  the 


152  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

thank  offering.  In  Eccl.  9  :  2,  the  man  "  who 
sacrifices  "  is  evidently  a  description  of  the  rehg- 
ious  man.  In  Ps.  20  :  3 ;  Job  1:5;  and  42  :  8, 
the  efficacy  of  sacrifices  is  recognized,  although 
in  the  last  case  only  partially,  the  intercession  of 
Job  being  also  needed.  Of  course,  also,  in  the 
latter  part  of  Ezekiel  sacrifices  are  spoken  of  with 
approval,  and  many  ritual  directions  are  given. 
Other  passages  might  be  added  to  those  thus 
given,  chiefly  those  in  which  the  references  are 
less  direct. 

In  this  connection  reference  should  be  made  to 
a  view  which  finds  frequent  expression  at  the 
present  time.  This  is  that  some  of  the  prophets 
and  psalmists  in  the  earlier  time  entirely  rejected 
sacrifices,  especially,  as  usually  stated,  the  pre- 
exilic  prophets;  while  later  the  prophets  as  well 
as  others  recognized  the  validity  of  sacrifices. 
The  most  marked  divergence  of  this  view  from 
the  one  above  given  is  in  reference  to  the  teaching 
of  the  preexilic  prophets. 

In  answer,  two  things  especially  may  be  said. 
One  is  that  the  prophetic  denunciations  of  sacri- 
fice do  not  contemplate  the  abolition  of  the  system. 
These  denunciations  are  numerous,  as  will  be  seen 
later,  but  they  are  regularly  of  sacrifices  as  of- 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 53 

fered  by  the  wicked.  This  connection  is  made 
clear  and  exphcit,  so  that  it  is  very  evident  that 
it  is  sacrifices  as  offered  in  the  time  of  the  prophets 
that  are  in  mind.  Hence  there  is  no  ground  for 
saying  that  any  preexihc  prophet  entirely  rejected 
sacrifices  as  such.  The  other  thing  to  be  noted 
is  that  several  of  the  preexihc  prophets,  including 
those  most  prominent,  expressly  speak  in  favor- 
able terms  of  sacrifices.  Passages  showing  this 
have  already  been  cited,  viz.,  Hosea  3  :  4;  9  :  4; 
Isa.  19  :  21;  Jer.  17  :  26;  33  :  11,  18.  The  gen- 
uineness of  all  these  passages  in  Jeremiah  is  not 
certain,  although  they  are  accepted  by  most.  But 
in  any  case  it  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  not  any 
of  them  are  genuine. 

It  should  be  added,  however,  that  a  comparison 
between  the  priestly  legislation  and  the  other 
writings  shows  a  frequent  difference  of  emphasis. 
In  the  non-ritual  writings  the  emphasis  is  ordi- 
narily not  upon  the  efHcacy  of  sacrifice,  but  upon 
the  limitation  in  its  efficacy.  It  is  this  especially 
which  gives  the  impression  of  a  marked  variation 
in  the  teachings. 

We  pass  to  a  somewhat  more  detailed  con- 
sideration of  certain  passages  which  speak  un- 
favorably of  sacrifices.    In  some  it  is  said  that  in 


154  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  particular  cases  in  question  the  sacrifices  are 
unacceptable  on  account  of  sin,  as  Amos  4  :  4f ; 
Hosea  4  :  i^f,  19;  8  :  13;  Jer.  6  :  20;  Prov. 
15  :  8;  21  :  2y.  The  precise  way  in  which  they 
are  affected  by  sin  is  not  made  clear;  it  might 
seem  at  first  that  the  teaching  is  here  found  that 
a  right  attitude  of  mind  is  essential  for  the  ac- 
ceptance of  sacrifice,  which  has  not  been  directly 
taught  in  anything  yet  noted.  But  there  seems 
to  be  nothing  to  suggest  that  idea.  Rather, 
when  viewed  in  the  light  of  their  times  and  cir- 
cumstances, these  passages  indicate  that  the  refer- 
ence is  to  sacrifices  offered  in  cases  that  are  out- 
side of  the  sphere  of  sacrifice,  and  are  thus  entirely 
in  harmony  with  the  distinction  between  the  two 
classes  of  sins  already  noted.  The  wicked  here, 
who  offer  the  unacceptable  sacrifices,  are  those 
who  have  sinned  with  a  high  hand;  they  have 
committed  offenses  which  cannot  be  atoned  for 
by  sacrifice.  This  is  evidently  the  thought  even  in 
the  strong  language  of  Isa.  66  :  3f,  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  sinners,  "  He  that  killeth  an  ox  is  as  he 
that  slayeth  a  man ;  he  that  sacrificeth  a  lamb,  as 
he  that  breaketh  a  dog's  neck ;  he  that  offereth  an 
oblation,  as  he  that  offereth  swine's  blood ;  he  that 
burneth  frankincense,  as  he  that  blesseth  an  idol. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 55 

Yea,  they  have  chosen  their  own  ways,  and  their 
soul  deHghteth  in  their  abominations:  I  also  will 
choose  their  delusions,  and  will  bring  their  fears 
upon  them;  because  when  I  called,  none  did  an- 
swer ;  when  I  spake,  they  did  not  hear :  but  they 
did  that  which  was  evil  in  mine  eyes,  and  chose 
that  wherein  I  delighted  not." 

In  other  passages  the  same  thought  is  expressed, 
with  something  more.  These  sinners  are  not  only 
outside  of  the  scope  of  sacrifices,  but,  as  implied  by 
that  fact,  their  proper  punishment  is  death.  That 
punishment,  however,  in  the  mercy  of  God,  may 
be  averted  by  repentance,  of  which  the  best  evi- 
dence is  a  changed  life.  In  these  passages,  then, 
the  thought  is  not,  as  it  is  often  considered,  that 
the  performance  of  moral  acts  is  to  be  regarded  as 
directly  taking  the  place  of  sacrifices ;  but  rather, 
this  performance  testifies  to  the  sincerity  of  the 
repentance  of  those  whose  only  hope  is  in  di- 
rect access  to  God  through  repentance,  who  have 
nothing  to  hope  from  sacrifices  because  of  their 
great  sins.  Thus  Amos  5  :  22-24,  without  dis- 
cussing ver.  25,  the  meaning  of  which  is  much  dis- 
puted, evidently  means,  in  the  context,  especially  in 
relation  to  ver.  16-20,  that  we  have  here  sacrifices 
unacceptable  on  account  of  sin  which  puts  the  of- 


156  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ferers  outside  of  their  scope.  They  also  empha- 
size the  need  of  a  changed  life  as  an  expression  of 
repentance  in  the  words  (ver.  24),  "  But  let  jus- 
tice roll  down  as  waters,  and  righteousness  as  a 
mighty  stream."  This  side  is  more  fully  stated 
in  ver.  I4f,  preceding,  "  Seek  good,  and  not  evil, 
that  ye  may  live;  and  so  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
hosts,  will  be  with  you,  as  ye  say.  Hate  the  evil, 
and  love  the  good,  and  establish  justice  in  the 
gate:  it  may  be  that  Jehovah,  the  God  of  hosts, 
will  be  gracious  unto  the  remnant  of  Joseph." 
The  same  thought  is  found  in  Hosea  6  :  6,  which 
should  be  rendered,  "  For  love  I  delight  in,  and 
not  sacrifice;  and  knowledge  of  God,  and  not 
burnt  offerings."  Here  the  relation  to  the  cove- 
nant is  emphasized  by  the  next  verse,  which  speaks 
of  those  concerned  as  transgressing  the  covenant. 
Such  is  also  clearly  the  thought  of  Isa.  i  :  11-17. 
The  condition  of  those  addressed  is  evident  from 
the  preceding  part  of  the  chapter,  and  is  also 
shown  by  the  reason  given  in  ver.  15  for  the  un- 
acceptableness  of  the  worship,  "  your  hands  are 
full  of  blood."  Here  the  way  to  God's  favor  is 
clearly  shown  by  ver.  i6f,  "  Wash  you,  make  you 
clean,  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  be- 
fore mine  eyes ;  cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ; 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 57 

seek  justice,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fa- 
therless, plead  for  the  widow,"  as  well  as  by  the 
following  ver.  18-20.  The  thought  is  the  same  in 
Micah  6  :  6-8.  The  condition  of  the  people  ad- 
dressed is  shown  by  other  parts  of  the  prophecy, 
as  chap.  3.  Here  the  demand  upon  the  wicked 
nation  is  ''  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  kindness,  and 
to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God."  This  is  clearly 
the  thought  also  of  Ps.  51  :  16,  17.  This  is  writ- 
ten by  one  who  has  committed  great  transgres- 
sion, therefore  sacrifice  is  of  no  avail  for  his  sin. 
The  only  way  to  approach  God  is  through  re- 
pentance (ver.  17),  "The  sacrifices  of  God  are 
a  broken  spirit :  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart,  O 
God,  thou  wilt  not  despise." 

A  few  other  passages  are  based  upon  the  same 
general  ideas,  but  go  a  little  farther.  Prov.  21:3 
states,  *'  To  do  righteousness  and  justice  is  more 
acceptable  to  Jehovah  than  sacrifice."  It  seems 
probable  that  this  should  be  rendered,  "  To  do 
righteousness  and  justice  is  acceptable  to  Jehovah 
rather  than  sacrifice."  Here  there  is  no  context 
that  enables  one  to  say  whether  it  is  distinctly 
sacrifice  of  the  wicked  that  is  in  mind.  Yet  the 
passages  already  cited  would  make  that  a  natural 
thought,  at  least  for  the  starting-point.    Of  course 


158  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

those  who  do  not  righteousness  and  justice  are 
sinners  from  whom  sacrifice  would  not  be  accept- 
able, but  who  often  had  an  exaggerated  concep- 
tion of  the  efficacy  of  sacrifice.  This,  then,  would 
be  of  the  nature  of  a  generalization  from  the 
teachings  already  mentioned :  sacrifices  cannot,  as 
it  is  often  thought,  take  the  place  of  righteousness 
and  justice.  The  same  is  probably  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  teaching  of  Ps.  40  :  6-8.  Here  the 
thought  is  that  sacrifice  cannot  take  the  place  of 
obedience.  This  regards  "  sin  offering  "  as  the 
proper  rendering  in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  6. 
With  the  view  of  Briggs  ^  and  a  few  others,  that 
this  should  be  rendered  "  sin,"  we  should  have 
simply  the  general  teaching  that  sacrifice  from  a 
great  sinner  is  unacceptable. 

In  Ps.  50  :  8-14,  a  somewhat  different  thought 
seems  to  be  found.  There  sacrifices  are  not  en- 
tirely rejected,  in  fact  they  are  recognized  in 
ver.  5,  "  Gather  my  saints  together  unto  me,  those 
that  have  made  a  covenant  with  me  by  sacrifice." 
Here,  then,  it  is  not  the  wicked  but  the  righteous 
that  are  addressed.  What  is  reproved  in  this 
passage  is  apparently  an  excessive  valuation  of  the 
sacrifice  as  a  gift  to  God.     In  ver,  16-21,  when 

*  Commentary  in  loco. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 59 

the  wicked  are  addressed,  who  have  broken  the 
covenant,  there  is  no  mention  of  sacrifice. 

There  are  many  other  passages  which  speak  of 
direct  approach  to  God,  often  with  mercy  and 
forgiveness,  without  mention  of  sacrifice.  In 
many  of  these,  at  any  rate,  those  are  thought  of 
who  have  committed  great  sin,  and  who  conse- 
quently could  obtain  nothing  from  sacrifice.  This 
is  especially  the  case  in  the  prophets,  where  it  is 
particularly  the  national  salvation  that  is  in 
mind,  based  upon  God's  direct  forgiveness,  al- 
though individuals  are  also  included.  God's  di- 
rect forgiveness  is  thus  spoken  of,  e.  g.,  in  Isa. 
38  :  17;  Micah  7  :  19;  Isa.  44  :  22.  It  is  clear, 
also,  that  for  the  most  part  in  the  psalms  it  is 
those  who  have  committed  great  sin  who  are 
thought  of  when  God's  forgiveness  is  mentioned, 
as  in  78  :  38;  79  :  9;  85  :  2.  This  is  not 
equally  evident  in  Ps.  65  :  3,  but  the  terms  used 
would  naturally  suggest  it. 

There  are  also  a  few  passages  which  speak 
of  approach  to  God  in  the  temple,  or  tabernacle, 
where  sacrifice  might  naturally  be  mentioned,  but 
it  is  ignored.  These  are  especially  Ps.  24  :  3-6, 
and  Isa.  33  :  14-16,  although  in  the  latter  there  is 
no  direct  reference  to  the  temple,  but  to  the  pres- 


l6o  THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

ence  of  God.  Here  the  qualifications  for  entrance 
to  Yahweh  are  ethical,  not  ritual.  In  these  there 
seems  to  be  a  disposition  to  ignore  the  sacrifices 
in  their  own  sphere,  substituting  ethical  character 
for  them.  Probably,  however,  they  should  be  re- 
garded simply  as  illustrations  of  the  tendency, 
already  mentioned,  to  place  the  emphasis  upon 
character  rather  than  sacrifices. 

Ps.  26 :  6  apparently  demands  an  ethical  prepa- 
ration for  joining  in  the  worship  at  the  altar;  if 
so,  it  seems  to  be  the  only  passage  directly  making 
this  demand.  Probably  a  better  rendering  for  the 
verse,  however,  is,  "  I  have  washed  my  hands 
in  innocency;  then  may  I  compass  thine  altar,  O 
Jehovah."  With  this  rendering  the  meaning  is, 
as  suggested  by  indications  in  the  psalm,  that 
the  author  was  debarred,  apparently  by  danger- 
ous sickness,  from  the  temple.  He  is  praying  for 
restoration  to  health,  and  at  the  same  time  for 
relief  from  the  suspicion  that  he  is  a  great  sinner, 
which  might  be  indicated  by  his  affliction.  With 
this  interpretation  the  verse  is  simply  based  on 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  limitation  of  the  scope 
of  sacrifice. 

The  passages  quoted,  and  others,  which  speak 
of  approach  to  God  without  sacrifice,  often  use  for 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  l6l 

atonement  the  word  ^§5,  the  word  that  is  used 
in  the  ritual  Hterature.  In  its  usual  and  char- 
acteristic non-ritual  use,  the  word  has  God  for 
the  subject  and  sin  as  the  object.  It  seems  reason- 
ably clear  that  the  ritual  use  of  the  word  is  the 
older,  both  because  it  more  clearly  expresses  the 
original  force  of  the  root,  and  also  because  that 
gives  a  more  natural  development  of  the  meaning 
than  the  reverse  process  would  afford.  In  har- 
mony with  the  broadening  of  the  early  ritual 
meaning  of  sin,  this  ritual  term  has  naturally  come 
to  be  used  with  a  wider  application.  This  word, 
originally  signifying  to  wash  away,  as  a  physical, 
ceremonial  act,  should  here  probably  be  under- 
stood to  mean,  as  a  spiritual  act,  the  complete  re- 
moval of  sin,  which  is  suggested  also  by  many 
other  Old  Testament  words  and  phrases.  In  this 
removal  there  is  no  instrumentality,  in  general, 
aside  from  God  himself ;  he  removes  sin  by  reason 
of  his  very  nature,  his  mercy,  his  forgiving  love, 
especially  "  for  his  name's  sake."  Of  course  a 
repentant  spirit  on  the  part  of  man  is  a  general 
condition  for  this.  Sin  in  its  real  force  and 
power  is  thus  not  atoned  for  by  sacrifice,  but  is 
forgiven  by  God  himself.  This  conception  marks 
the  great  difference  between  the  Old  Testament 


1 62  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

and  the  other  Semitic  rehgions  in  reference  to 
salvation.  The  conception  of  sacrifice  within  its 
sphere  is  the  same,  except  in  details,  as  that  pre- 
vailing elsewhere.  It  is  the  conception  of  the  limi- 
tation of  the  scope  of  sacrifice,  and  of  salvation 
apart  from  it,  that  is  really  unique  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 


PART  IV 
THE  FUTURE  LIFE 


THE  GENERAL  CONCEPTION 

THE  subject  of  this  part  is  the  future  life, 
rather  than  a  more  general  subject  like  the 
last  things.  The  reason  is  that  certain  things  in 
the  Old  Testament  doctrine  which  would  be  in- 
cluded under  the  more  general  title  have  practic- 
ally no  equivalent  elsewhere.  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  Messianic  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  related  ideas  concerning  the  future 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  There  is  nothing  suffi- 
ciently parallel  to  this  among  the  other  nations 
under  consideration  to  need  any  detailed  con- 
sideration. It  is  true  that  there  are  slight  re- 
semblances between  this  Messianic  expectation 
and  the  Egyptian  anticipation  of  a  future  king 
who  should  be  a  deliverer.^  The  resemblance  to 
the  work  of  Marduk  in  Babylonia  ^  is  much 
slighter.     But  any  such  parallels  yet  known  do 

1  Jeremias,   "  Das  Alte   Testament  im  Lichte  des  Alien   Orients," 
2d  ed.,  p.   4o6f. 

2  Jeremias,    "Das  Alte   Testament  im   Lichte   des  Alien   Orients,' 
2d  ed.,  p.  i8o. 

i6S 


1 66  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

not  touch  the  real  essence  of  the  Old  Testament 
Messianic  expectation. 

The  only  Semitic  religion,  aside  from  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  any  extended  teaching  con- 
cerning the  future  life  has  been  found  is  the  Baby- 
lonian. For  purposes  of  comparison  it  may  be 
desirable  to  state  first  the  Babylonian  conception, 
after  which  the  Egyptian  view,  as  well  as  other 
fragmentary  Semitic  teachings,  will  be  briefly 
mentioned.  The  Babylonian  conception  of  the 
earth  is  as  a  mountain.  The  origin  of  this  concep- 
tion is  uncertain,  but  that  does  not  particularly 
affect  the  present  matter.  The  abode  of  the  dead 
was  conceived  of  as  a  cave  under  a  mountain. 
This  might  seem  to  point  to  a  time  when  the 
people  lived  in  a  mountainous  district  and  buried 
in  caves. ^  But  that  is  by  no  means  certain. 
Doubtless  it  does  indicate  that  in  early  times,  as 
well  as  later,  the  dead  were  buried  in  the  earth. 
The  idea  of  a  cave  may  have  been  a  natural  de- 
^^elopment  of  the  idea  of  the  grave,  as  necessary 
in  order  to  any  freedom  of  movement.  Many 
features  in  the  conception  of  the  abode  of  the  dead 
come  from  the  grave.  The  name  of  the  under- 
world in  Babylonian  is  Aralu.   Some  have  thought 

^  Jastrow,  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  557. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 67 

that  there  is  another  name  occurring  a  few  times, 
Shualu,  the  Hebrew  b%vj,  Sheol,  but  this  is  very 
doubtful.  This  region  is  represented  as  a  dark 
and  gloomy  place,  surrounded  by  seven  walls.  It 
was  thus  strongly  guarded  so  that  none  of  the 
dead  could  escape  and  none  of  the  living  could 
enter.  It  was  presided  over  by  the  goddess  Allatu 
and  her  consort  Nergal,  accompanied  by  asso- 
ciated gods  and  demons.  In  the  poem  called 
"  Ishtar's  Descent  to  Hades,"  containing  an  ac- 
count of  a  visit  of  the  goddess  Ishtar  to  the  under- 
world, is  given  a  good  description  of  this  region. 

Toward  the  land  of  No-Return,  the  region  of  darkness, 
Ishtar,  the  daughter  of  the  Moon-god,  directed  her 

attention. 
The  Moon-god's  daughter  directed  her  attention 
Toward  the  house  of  darkness,  Irkalla's  dwelling-place, 
Toward  the  house  out  of  which  he  who  enters  never 

comes, 
Toward  the  road  whose  way  turns  not  back, 
Toward  the  house  where  he  who  enters  is  deprived  of 

light, 
A  place  where  dust  is  their  sustenance,  their  food  clay. 
Light  they  see  not,  they  sit  in  darkness, 
They  are  clothed,  like  a  bird,  with  feathered  raiment, 
Over  door  and  bolt  is  spread  the  dust.^ 

Jastrow  describes  the  condition  of  the  dead,  on 
the  Babylonian  view,  as  follows  :^  "  What  dis- 

1  ABL,  p.  408.       2  "  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  p.  276f. 


1 68  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

tinguishes  the  dead  from  the  Hving  is  their  in- 
activity. They  He  in  Aralu  without  doing  any- 
thing. Everything  there  is  in  a  state  of  neglect 
and  decay.  The  dead  can  speak,  but  the  Baby- 
lonians probably  believed,  like  the  Hebrews,  that 
the  dead  talk  in  whispers,  or  chirp  like  birds. 
The  dead  are  weak,  and,  therefore,  unless  others 
attend  to  their  needs,  they  suffer  pangs  of  hunger, 
or  must  content  themselves  with  *  dust  and  clay ' 
as  their  food.  Tender  care  during  the  last  mo- 
ments of  life  was  essential  to  comparative  well- 
being  in  Aralu.  The  person  who  goes  to  Aralu 
in  sorrow  and  neglect  will  continue  sorrowful  and 
neglected."  The  condition  of  the  dead  was  thus 
a  shadowy  kind  of  existence.  Aralu  was  under 
the  control  of  the  gods  and  goddesses  already 
mentioned ;  the  other  gods  had  nothing  to  do  with 
it ;  it  was  beyond  their  province. 

A  similar  conception  at  a  late  date  among  the 
Phoenicians  is  indicated  by  allusions  in  the  in- 
scriptions of  Eshmunazar  and  Tabnith  of  Sidon, 
about  300  B.  C.  Each  of  these  pronounces  a 
curse  on  any  one  who  disturbs  his  grave,  wish- 
ing, among  other  things,  that  he  may  have  no 
"  resting-place  among  the  shades,"  D«3n  n«  ^dWd.^ 

1  CIS,  I,  3;  Cooke,  "A  Text-book  of  North-Semitic  Inscriptions," 
pp.  26f,  3of. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  169 

The  Aramaic  inscription  of  Panammu,  eighth 
century  B.  C,  implies  a  future  Hfe  in  speaking  of 
himself  after  death  as  eating  and  drinking  with 
the  god  Hadad/ 

The  Egyptian  religion  contains  many  inconsist- 
ent representations  concerning  the  future  life,  as 
on  many  other  points.  The  principal  teachings 
are  those  of  the  cults  of  Ra  and  Osiris.  In  the 
doctrine  of  Ra,  the  abode  of  the  dead  was  under 
the  earth,  and  was  a  cheerless  region,  as  in  the 
Babylonian  conception,  being  ordinarily  in  dark- 
ness. It  was  a  region  in  its  characteristics  much 
like  Egypt  itself.  In  the  doctrine  of  Osiris,  the 
abode  was  more  cheerful,  but  the  general  condi- 
tions of  existence  are  not  clearly  stated. 

There  can  hardly  be  any  question  that  the 
general  conception  of  the  Hebrew  Sheol  has  no 
distinctively  Egyptian  features,  and  is  the  same  as 
the  Babylonian  idea  of  Aralu.  This  is  a  concep- 
tion which  is  assumed  as  familiar  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  more  frequently  alluded  to  than  di- 
rectly taught.  A  few  passages  will  show  the  prin- 
cipal features  of  the  Old  Testament  view.  In  Job 
10  :  2 if.  Job  says,  "  Before  I  go  whence  I  shall 
not  return,  even  to  the  land  of  darkness  and  of 

1  Cooke,  "A  Text-book  of  North-Semitic  Inscriptions,"  p.   160  seq. 


I/O  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  shadow  of  death ;  the  land  dark  as  midnight ; 
the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  without  any 
order,  and  where  the  Hght  is  as  midnight."  In 
Eccl.  9  :  5f,  10,  it  is  said,  "  For  the  Hving  know 
that  they  shall  die :  but  the  dead  know  not  any- 
thing, neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward;  for 
the  memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  As  well  their 
love,  as  their  hatred  and  their  envy,  is  perished 
long  ago;  neither  have  they  any  more  a  portion 
for  ever  in  anything  that  is  done  under  the  sun. 
.  .  Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with 
thy  might;  for  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor 
knowledge,  nor  wisdom,  in  Sheol,  whither  thou 
goest."  That  there  is  no  return  is  also  emphasized 
in  Job  7  :  9f;  i6  :  22;  2  Sam.  12  :  23.  The 
only  material  modification  of  the  view  that  ap- 
pears in  the  Old  Testament,  aside  from  the  mat- 
ter of  the  distinction  between  the  righteous  and 
wicked,  which  will  be  treated  later,  is  concern- 
ing the  relation  of  Yahweh  to  Sheol.  There  is 
no  express  statement  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
Yahweh  has  no  power  over  Sheol.  There  is 
clearly  the  idea  that  the  dead  have  nothing  to 
do  with  him,  which,  however,  evidently  approaches 
the  matter  from  the  other  side,  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  dead,  in  their  loss  of  the  relations 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  I71 

that  prevail  in  this  Hfe.  Thus  it  is  said  (Ps. 
115  :  17),  "The  dead  praise  not  Jehovah, 
neither  any  that  go  down  into  silence,"  and  Ps. 
6  :  5,  "  For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance 
of  thee:  in  Sheol  who  shall  give  thee  thanks?" 
The  general  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  even 
in  early  times,  is  that  Yahweh,  as  a  god  of  su- 
preme and  universal  power,  cannot  be  limited  to 
this  life,  but  his  control  extends  even  to  Sheol. 
Thus  in  the  song  of  Hannah  it  is  said  ( i  Sam.  2  : 
6),  "  Jehovah  killeth,  and  maketh  alive :  he  bring- 
eth  down  to  Sheol,  and  bringeth  up."  Ps.  139  : 
8  says,  "  If  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  art 
there :  if  I  make  my  bed  in  Sheol,  behold,  thou  are 
there." 

The  spirits  of  the  dead,  it  was  thought  by  the 
Babylonians,  could  return  to  earth  and  cause 
sickness  of  men.  In  this  work  they  were  like  the 
evil  demons,  and  were  called  by  the  same  names, 
chiefly  ekimmu,  sometimes  utukku,  which  were 
two  among  several  names  of  the  demons.  Incan- 
tations were  directed  against  them,  as  against 
the  demons.  There  were  also  priests  who  had  to 
do  especially  with  the  spirits  of  the  dead,  these 
were  known  as  sha  ekimmu.  These  could  bring 
up  the  dead  {miishelu  ekimmu).    The  spirit  thus 


172  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

brought  Up  is  known  as  shulu^  There  are  cere- 
monies for  exorcising  these  spirits  of  the  dead 
who  have  taken  possession  of  a  man.^  Offerings 
are  made  to  them  for  their  food,  called  kispu,  and 
libations,  called  naq  me,  pouring  out  of  water.^ 
They  are  also  given  other  gifts,  such  as  clothing. 
These  offerings,  it  would  seem,  are  largely  to 
pacify  the  spirits  so  as  to  prevent  trouble  from 
them,  or  to  drive  them  away  from  one  whom  they 
have  attacked.  Partly  also,  it  would  seem,  this 
was  prompted  by  real  solicitude  for  the  welfare 
of  ancestors,  who  are,  of  course,  the  spirits  ordi- 
narily in  mind.* 

The  only  Old  Testament  account  of  the  return 
of  a  spirit  of  the  dead  is  in  the  real  or  supposed 
bringing  up  of  Samuel  (i  Sam.  28  :  8-19), 
where  the  phraseology  has  resemblances  to  the 
Babylonian  terms,  especially  in  the  use  of  bring 
up  (nbj^n)j  corresponding  to  the  Babylonian 
mushelu.  But  in  connection  with  this  passage  and 
elsewhere,  the  Old  Testament  regularly  forbids 
such  practices.  The  other  Babylonian  features 
mentioned  are  unknown  in  the  Old  Testament, 
or  specifically  forbidden. 

1  See  especially  KAT,  3d  edy^  pp.  460,  640. 

2  See  especially  Zimmern,  "  Ritual  Tablets,"  No.  52,  pp.  164-167. 

3  Zimmern,   "  Ritual  Tablets,"   No.   52,   pp.    164-167. 
*  See  KB,  II,  pp.  262!,   i92f. 


II 


REWARDS  AND  PUNISHMENTS  IN  THE 
FUTURE  LIFE 

BEFORE  directly  considering  the  subject 
before  us,  it  may  be  well  to  state  again 
briefly  the  conception  concerning  rewards  and 
punishments  in  this  life  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 
The  general  teaching  in  both  is  substantially  the 
same.  They  teach  that  righteousness  is  rewarded 
and  sin  punished  in  this  life.  Of  course  the  mean- 
ing of  this  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
terms,  which  varies  somewhat  in  the  two  cases, 
as  has  already  been  seen.  According  to  the  Baby- 
lonian conception,  sin  is  only  definitely  known 
by  its  results— in  disaster.  Hence  there  is  noth- 
ing to  interfere  with  the  teaching  that  sin  brings 
punishment,  because  the  sin,  of  some  kind,  may 
be  definitely  concluded  from  the  disaster  itself. 
The  conception  of  righteousness  as  bringing  re- 
ward, however,  was  apparently  rather  a  nega- 
tive one;  the  reward  was,  in  general,  the  absence 

173 


174  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  sickness  or  disaster.  It  was  a  part  of  the  con- 
ception that  sin  brought  death,  and  hence  that 
long  Hfe  was  a  reward  of  righteousness.  This 
appears  prominently  in  the  formula  that  is  com- 
mon in  the  letters  and  elsewhere,  wishing  for  one 
length  of  days. 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  conception  of  sin  was 
more  clearly  defined,  as  has  been  seen,  and  on  a 
higher  basis.  The  result  was  that  disaster  with- 
out special  sin  was  observed,  as  well  as  prosperity 
of  the  wicked,  and  such  cases  proved  confusing. 
Hence,  while  the  general  conception  is  like  the 
Babylonian,  as  has  been  stated,  in  the  later 
Old  Testament  teaching  this  was  considered  to 
have  exceptions,  although  not  fully  abandoned. 
That  long  life  was  the  result  of  righteousness  was 
a  part  of  the  general  Old  Testament  view. 

Since  the  general  conception  in  both  nations 
thus  contemplated  rewards  and  punishments  with 
a  measure  of  fulness  in  this  life,  it  is  not  surpri- 
sing that  we  find  comparatively  little  concerning 
them  in  relation  to  the  future  life.  In  considering 
whether  there  is  any  relation  of  the  kind,  it  will 
be  convenient  to  begin  with  the  Babylonian  belief. 
The  questions  here  are  two,  which  will  be  con- 
sidered somewhat  together.    First,  are  there  any 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 75 

differences  in  the  condition  of  separate  individ- 
uals in  Aralu?  Secondly,  if  there  are  such  dif- 
ferences in  condition,  are  they  due  to  the  life  in 
the  present  world,  in  such  a  way  that  they  can  be 
considered  rewards  or  punishments? 

The  clearest  passage  for  difference  in  condi- 
tion of  souls  in  the  underworld  is  found  in  the 
Gilgamesh  narrative,  tablet  XII,  col.  VI,  11.  1-12. 
The  preceding  context  is  broken  away,  so  that 
the  reference  of  the  first  line  is  doubtful.  The 
translation  is  as  follows  :^ 

Rests  on  a  soft  couch,  and  drinks  pure  water; 

The  hero  slain  in  battle — 

Thou  and  I  have  often  seen  such  an  one — 
His  father  and  mother  support  his  head, 
And  his  wife  [kneels]  at  his  side. 
Yea!  the  spirit  of  such  a  man  is  at  rest. 
But  the  man  whose  corpse  remains  [unburied]  upon  the 
field— 

Thou  and  I  have  often  seen  such  an  one — 
His  spirit  does  not  find  rest  in  the  earth  (i.  e.,  Hades). 
The  man  whose  spirit  has  no  one  who  cares  for  it — 

Thou  and  I  have  often  seen  such  an  one — 
Consumes  the  dregs  of  the  bowl,  the  broken  remnants 

of  food, 
That  are  cast  into  the  street. 

In  the  first  line  the  rendering  "soft  couch" 
might  convey  a  wrong  impression,  the  rendering 

lABL,  p.  366. 


176  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

"  couch  "  would  probably  be  better.  It  is  the 
usual  word  for  couch,  rna'alu.  The  word  "  rests  " 
(salil)  is  the  same  word  as  is  used  below,  with  a 
negative,  in  the  description  of  the  one  whose  body 
is  unburied.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  first  line 
refers  to  the  hero  slain  in  battle.  But  assuming, 
as  is  usually  done,  that  that  is  the  case,  his  condi- 
tion is  not  the  result  of  his  being  a  hero,  but  of 
the  care  he  receives  from  relatives.  The  one  who 
has  not  rest,  but  must  wander  about,  is  the  one 
whose  body  is  unburied.  The  first  line,  then,  in  this 
statement  probably  only  means  that  the  one  who 
receives  proper  care,  especially  burial,  has  rest  in 
the  underworld.  Such  a  one,  who  has  proper 
care,  also  has  pure  water  to  drink;  while  the  one 
who  has  no  care  has  nothing  fit  to  eat  or  drink. 
This  care  includes  care  at  the  time  of  death,  and 
evidently  also  after  death,  as  is  here  seen  es- 
pecially from  the  statement,  "  The  man  whose 
spirit  has  no  one  who  cares  for  it."  This  care 
doubtless  included  the  food  and  drink  offered  to 
the  spirits  of  the  dead,  already  mentioned.  It 
seems  evident  that  the  conception  is  that  the 
food  and  drink  offered  to  the  dead  form  their 
food  and  drink ;  if  this  is  not  provided,  they  have 
only  fragments  to  eat  and  that  which  is  left  by 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 77 

Others  to  drink.  The  inscription  on  the  conical 
piece  of  clay  placed  in  coffins  invokes  this  bless- 
ing on  any  one  who  leaves  it  undisturbed,  "  May 
his  name  be  blessed  in  the  Upperworld,  and  in  the 
Underworld  may  his  departed  spirit  drink  of 
clear  water."  ^  Here  it  is  evident  that  there  is  no 
statement  of  the  definite  way  to  reach  this  de- 
sirable end.  In  the  light  of  what  has  already 
been  noted  this  is  only  a  wish  that  the  one  who 
has  shown  kindness  to  the  dead  may  receive  it 
from  others. 

In  tablet  X,  col.  VI  of  the  Gilgamesh  narra- 
tive, it  is  said  of  the  Anunnaki,  the  great  gods, 
and  the  goddess  of  fate  that  they  determine  death 
and  life.  This  is  said  in  connection  with  the  un- 
derworld, but  the  precise  reference  is  not  alto- 
gether clear.  It  is  thought  by  some  that  it  re- 
fers to  the  determination  of  the  fate  of  those 
who  arrive  there.  But  it  seems  much  more 
natural  to  regard  it  as  referring  to  those  on 
this  earth,  for  it  is  immediately  followed  by  the 
statement,  "  the  day  of  death  is  unknown." 
Hence  this  would  have  no  reference  to  the  ques- 
tion before  us. 

The  conclusion,  then,  is  that  the  Babylonians 

1  Delitzsch,  "  Babel  and  Bible,"  p.  49;  see  also  KAT,  3d  ed..  p.  638. 
M 


I7S  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

knew  nothing  of  a  separation  in  space  between 
different  classes  in  the  underworld.  In  general, 
all  shared  the  same  conditions.  A  spirit  whose 
body  was  unburied,  however,  was  obliged  to 
wander  without  finding  rest.  The  care  of  rela- 
tives and  friends,  especially  the  offerings,  pro- 
vided food  and  drink  for  the  spirits;  and  those 
who  had  not  such  care  consequently  suffered. 
This  difference  in  condition,  however,  had  no 
reference  to  moral  condition  or  to  the  life  on 
earth ;  it  was  not,  therefore,  in  any  real  sense  re- 
ward or  punishment. 

The  Phoenician  passages  already  quoted  show  a 
belief,  similar  to  the  Babylonian,  that  some  of  the 
shades  had  a  resting-place  in  the  next  world.  In 
the  Aramaic  inscription  of  Panammu,  already  re- 
ferred to,  a  teaching  of  future  blessedness  seems 
to  be  found.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  in- 
dicates a  general  belief  of  that  kind :  it  may  rather 
show  a  hope  of  some  special  treatment,  perhaps 
deification,  of  himself  as  a  king. 

In  both  phases  of  the  Egyptian  doctrine  al- 
ready referred  to  there  is  some  distinction  be- 
tween the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  In  the  cult 
of  Ra,  this  distinction  was  made  on  ritual  and 
magical  grounds.     The  abode  of  the  righteous 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  1 79 

was  by  a  river,  the  counterpart  of  the  Nile.  This 
was,  however,  a  world  of  darkness,  the  region 
of  night,  lighted  each  night  for  a  brief  space  by 
Ra,  the  sun  god,  as  he  passed  through  it  in  his 
bark.  The  ordinary  lot  of  the  righteous  had 
little  that  was  attractive :  it  was  vague  and 
shadowy.  A  few  of  the  righteous  were  received 
into  the  bark  with  Ra  and  made  the  journey  with 
him  in  perpetual  light:  they  were  absorbed  into 
him.  But  this  distinction  was  not  the  reward  of 
a  good  life,  it  was  the  lot  of  a  few  of  the  rich 
and  learned  who  were  acquainted  with  certain 
mystic  formulae.  The  wicked  were  also  located 
on  the  banks  of  a  river  and  subjected  to  tortures 
from  horrible  monsters,  such  as  strange  animals 
and  fiery  serpents. 

This  cult  of  Ra  was  particularly  the  official  re- 
ligion. The  Osiris  cult,  however,  placed  more 
emphasis  on  the  future  life.  The  teaching  on  this 
point  is  contained  in  portions  of  the  Book  of  the 
Dead.  In  this,  also,  the  separation  between  the 
righteous  and  wicked  is  largely  on  magical  and 
ritual  grounds,  although  ethical  features  are  also 
included.  In  the  early  part  of  the  journey  after 
death  the  spirit  must  repeat  certain  prayers  and 
incantations  in  order  to  escape  the  enemies  lying 


l8o  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

in  wait — demons  in  various  animal  forms — and 
arrive  in  safety  at  the  judgment  hall,  where  he 
was  received  by  Mat,  the  goddess  of  truth  and 
law.  Here  Osiris  on  the  judgment  seat  waited  to 
pronounce  sentence  on  the  soul.  The  soul  repeated 
a  prescribed  confession,  containing  both  ritual 
and  ethical  elements.  Then  the  heart,  or  con- 
science, of  the  man  was  weighed,  to  see  whether 
his  statements  were  borne  out  by  his  life.  If  so,  he 
was  admitted  to  the  fields  of  Alu,  the  abode  of  the 
blest.  Concerning  the  condition  there  the  descrip- 
tion is  vague.  These  righteous  were  obliged  to 
do  some  manual  labor,  although  their  places 
might  be  taken  by  ushebtis,  figures  buried  with 
the  mummies.  The  ultimate  condition  seems  to 
have  been  absorption  into  Osiris.  The  condi- 
tions of  life  for  the  wicked  were  even  more  uncer- 
tian;  Sayce  thinks  their  ultimate  fate  was  anni- 
hilation.^ The  final  condition  of  the  righteous 
seems  to  be  the  same  on  both  views,  a  pantheistic 
absorption. 

In  this  matter  of  separation  between  righteous 
and  wicked,  the  Old  Testament  shows  no  marked 
resemblance  to  the  Egyptian  doctrines. 

The  general  conception  of  Sheol,  as  has  been 

1  "  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,"  p.    179. 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  l8l 

said,  is  like  the  Babylonian  Aralu,  and  is  found 
throughout  the  Old  Testament.  Yet  the  Old  Tes- 
tament does  make  a  distinct  advance  upon  this 
thought.  This  appears  in  two  ways.  So  far  as 
concerns  the  actual  condition  in  Sheol,  the  Old 
Testament  does  not  definitely  divide  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  But  in  the  later  time, 
as  the  conception  of  retribution  in  this  world 
allows  many  exceptions,  the  problem  of  evil  is 
felt  to  call  for  a  solution,  and  in  the  absence  of  a 
satisfactory  solution  in  this  life  the  thought  turns 
to  the  future  life.  There  are  a  few  passages, 
therefore,  in  which  the  expectation  is  expressed 
that  the  righteous  may  not  be  given  over  to  the 
power  of  Sheol,  and  this  is  based  upon  their  fel- 
lowship with  Yahweh.  This  is  seen  especially  in 
Ps.  i6;  49;  73;  Job  19  :  25-27.  But  these  pas- 
sages give  no  definite  teaching.  Prov.  11:7  ^"^ 
14  :  32  give  expression  to  the  same  hope.  The 
other  addition  to  the  idea  of  Sheol  is  by  the  teach- 
ing of  a  resurrection.  This  appears  in  the  pro- 
phetic thought  at  first  as  a  national  resurrection, 
the  nation  which  has  died  in  exile  shall  be  raised 
again  from  the  dead,  as  in  Ezek.  37.  Then  this 
idea  of  national  resurrection  is  extended  to  the 
individual,  so  that  the  teaching  of  the  resurrec- 


1 82  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

tion  of  the  righteous  dead  appears  in  some  pas- 
sages; see  especially  Isa.  26  :  19.  This  is  further 
extended  to  the  wicked  as  well,  with  a  separation 
between  them,  in  Dan.  12:2,"  And  many  of 
them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall 
awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt."  This  marked 
contrast  appears  between  the  Old  Testament 
teaching  and  that  of  the  other  religions,  the  dis- 
tinction between  righteous  and  wicked  is  one  that 
is  based  on  ethical  grounds. 


PARTV 


GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS 


GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS 

IT  will  be  necessary  to  summarize  some  of  the 
results  already  reached,  and  then  in  the  light 
of  these  summaries  to  discuss  certain  general 
conclusions. 

The  first  thing  to  note  is  that  much  has  been 
found  which  is  common  to  the  Old  Testament 
teaching  and  to  one  or  more  of  the  other  Semitic 
religions.  The  one  prominent  feature  in  which 
the  Old  Testament  teaching  is  the  same  as 
the  teaching  of  these  other  religions  generally 
is  in  reference  to  sacrifice.  The  sacrificial  sys- 
tem of  the  Old  Testament  is  substantially 
identical  with  the  common-Semitic  sacrificial  sys- 
tem. It  differs  from  that  in  details,  as  the  other 
religions  also  differ  among  themselves  in  a  similar 
way.  But  in  reference  to  the  kinds  of  sacrifice 
and  their  significance  it  is  in  substantial  accord 
with  common-Semitic  ideas,  as  also  in  general 
in  reference  to  salvation  through  sacrifice.  The 
s:reat  difference,  however,  is  in  the  limitation  of 

185 


1 86  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  scope  of  sacrifice.  In  reference  to  sin,  also, 
a  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  teaching  has  a 
marked  similarity  to  the  common-Semitic  ideas. 
But  this  is  not  the  highest  point  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment development  of  the  thought;  that  point  is  a 
teaching  concerning  sin  that  is  radically  su- 
perior to  the  common-Semitic  teaching.  Again, 
the  teaching  concerning  the  future  life  in  the 
most  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  substantial  ac- 
cord with  the  Babylonian  views.  But  the  intro- 
duction in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  teaching 
concerning  rewards  and  punishments,  together 
with  the  resurrection,  marks  a  higher  stage,  al- 
though this  appears  late  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  in  only  a  few  passages.  These  three  teach- 
ings, concerning  sacrifice,  sin,  and  the  future  life, 
are  those  in  which  the  greatest  resemblance  is 
to  be  seen  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
other  religions.  There  is  a  close  resemblance,  to 
be  sure,  in  the  views  of  the  personality  of  the  di- 
vine nature,  which  resemblance  is  of  a  different 
kind,  however,  since  that  is  a  feature  which  al- 
most necessarily  results  from  anthropomorphism, 
and  hence  has  comparatively  little  significance. 

At  the  other  end  of  the  scale  stand  those  Old 
Testament  teachings  in  which  the  contrast  with 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  187 

the  common-Semitic  view  is  especially  marked. 
Here  is  to  be  noted  first  the  teaching  concerning 
divine  unity,  in  which  the  Old  Testament  differs 
radically  from  the  common-Semitic  view,  even 
although  tendencies  in  the  direction  of  monothe- 
ism are  to  be  noted  in  the  other  religions.  The 
teaching  concerning  divine  spirituality  is  also 
in  marked  contrast  with  the  common-Semitic 
view,  although  traces  of  spirituality  are  to  be 
noted  elsewhere.  So  also  the  teaching  concern- 
ing the  ethical  completeness  of  Yahweh  is  with- 
out a  parallel  in  the  common-Semitic  view,  the 
latter  contemplating  the  deities  for  the  most  part 
as  non-moral,  and  sometimes  immoral,  with 
traces  of  ethical  elements.  The  conception  of 
salvation  apart  from  sacrifice  or  incantation,  as 
presented  in  the  Old  Testament,  also,  has  no  real 
parallel  to  the  teaching  in  the  other  religions,  and 
is  in  marked  contrast  with  their  teachings.  The 
Messianic  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  fur- 
ther, which  was  alluded  to,  is  without  any  close 
known  parallel  among  the  other  nations  con- 
sidered. 

The  other  specific  points  on  which  comparison 
has  been  made  are  intermediate  between  these 
two  extremes.    They  show  resemblances  and  dif- 


1 88  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ferences;  but  the  differences  are  greater  than 
the  resemblances.  Here  are  to  be  included  all 
the  divine  metaphysical  attributes,  eternity,  om- 
nipotence, omnipresence,  and  omniscience;  and 
also  the  moral  attributes,  faithfulness,  righteous- 
ness, and  love.  In  all  these  the  Old  Testament 
teaching  is  in  marked  contrast  with  the  common- 
Semitic  view;  but  there  are  somewhat  stronger 
tendencies  elsewhere  in  the  direction  of  the  Old 
Testament  teachings  than  in  the  case  of  the  group 
previously  mentioned.  In  both  groups,  the  Old 
Testament  teaching  is  not  only  different  from, 
but  clearly  superior  to,  that  of  the  other  religions. 

The  comparison  made  with  the  Egyptian  re- 
ligion has  been  slight,  but  no  close  resemblances 
to  the  Old  Testament  have  been  observed. 

In  passing  from  the  summary  to  the  conclusions, 
the  first  question  to  be  discussed  is  concerning  the 
origin  of  this  element  which  is  common  to  the 
Old  Testament  and  one  or  more  of  the  other 
Semitic  religions.  Here  should  be  considered 
first  the  group  in  which  the  resemblance  is  great- 
est. There  are  three  theoretical  possibilities  to 
account  for  such  similarities:  (i)  independent 
development,  with  no  connection;  (2)  borrowing, 
in  one  direction  or  another;  (3)  inheritance  from 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 89 

common  ancestors.  The  first  is  manifestly  im- 
probable where  the  resemblance  is  marked.  In  the 
case  of  the  group  of  marked  resemblances,  we 
note  concerning  two  points,  sin  and  sacrifice,  that 
the  common  element  belongs  to  the  formal,  and 
hence  to  the  lower,  side  of  the  teaching;  and  that 
in  both  the  common  element  was  evidently  held  by 
the  Hebrews  at  a  comparatively  early  stage  in 
the  national  development,  as  well  as  later.  This 
statement  is  based  directly  upon  the  occurrence 
of  these  ideas  at  an  early  period,  and  also  upon 
the  fact  that  the  higher  view  of  both  subjects, 
which  is  manifestly  a  later  development,  is  itself 
rather  early.  The  teaching  on  both  points,  con- 
sequently, is  too  early  to  be  naturally  borrowed 
from  the  Babylonians,  from  whom  borrowing  is 
usually  supposed  to  have  taken  place,  if  at  all. 
Borrowing  from  the  Babylonians  may  most 
naturally  be  supposed  to  have  taken  place  at  the 
time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  less  naturally 
at  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  invasions.  At  any 
other  time  borrowing  from  the  Babylonians  or 
Assyrians  would  be  indirect  rather  than  direct. 
Against  any  large  amount  of  borrowing  is  also 
the  fact  that  comparatively  few  words  for  similar 
ideas  are  the  same  in  the  Babylonian  and  Hebrew 


190  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

languages.  The  teaching  concerning  the  future 
Hfe,  further,  is  closely  connected  with  these  other 
teachings,  and  is  clearly  found  at  an  early  point 
in  the  Hebrew  development.  Hence  in  this  group 
where  the  resemblance  is  closest  the  common  ele- 
ment, it  would  seem,  must  be  accounted  for  as  the 
result  of  inheritance  from  common  ancestors : 
these  views  are  the  expression  of  ideas  which,  if 
they  may  not  be  called  primitive  Semitic  ideas,  at 
any  rate  approach  the  primitive.  It  is  not  meant 
that  there  may  not  also  be  some  borrowing,  but 
this,  if  so,  must  pertain  to  the  details  rather  than 
to  the  main  substance  of  the  conceptions. 

Here,  doubtless,  reference  should  be  made  to 
the  view  that  the  Hebrew  sacrificial  system  was 
largely  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites.  This  is 
a  frequent  assumption,  but  positive  evidence  for 
it  seems  to  be  lacking.  It  is  based  principally 
upon  the  idea  that  the  religion  of  Israel  before 
the  conquest  of  Canaan,  sometimes  called  the 
nomad  religion,  was  simple,  and  sacrifice  was  an 
unimportant  element  in  it.  After  the  conquest, 
in  the  so-called  peasant  religion,  it  was  an  elabo- 
rate system,  with  a  fully  developed  sacrificial  sys- 
tem. The  Canaanites  also,  it  is  said,  had  a  fully 
developed     sacrificial     and     ceremonial     system 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  I9I 

Therefore  this  system,  it  is  thought,  must  have 
been  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites.  "  There 
can  be  no  doubt  about  it,  the  sacrificial  cultus  is 
in  its  main  features  a  Canaanite  institution  ap- 
propriated by  Israel  after  the  conquest."  ^  This 
view  exaggerates  the  contrast  between  the  con- 
dition before  and  after  the  conquest.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  there  was  ever  a  time  in  the 
early  history  of  Israel  when  sacrifice  was  con- 
sidered unimportant.  This  view  of  the  religion 
before  the  conquest  is  based  chiefly  upon  Amos 
5  :  25  and  Jer.  7  :  22,  the  interpretation  of  both 
of  which  is  doubtful,  and  probably  does  not  sup- 
port these  contentions.  That  there  was  some 
change  after  the  conquest  is  unquestionably  the 
case,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  it  was 
in  essence  more  than  a  fuller  unfolding  and  de- 
velopment of  the  institutions  already  in  existence. 
That  there  was  probably  influence  by  the  Canaan- 
ites, and  borrowing  from  them,  is  riot  denied;  it 
is  only  maintained  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
this  affected  more  than  the  details  of  the  cultus. 
In  fact,  the  recent  evidence  of  excavations  in 
Palestine  goes  to  show  that  the  attitude  of  the 

1  Marti,   "The  Religion   of  the   Old  Testament,"  p.   88;   see  also 
p.  66  seq. 


192  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Hebrews  toward  the  Canaanite  religion  was 
largely  one  of  opposition,  and  that  not  only  at  a 
later  time  but  soon  after  the  conquest.  This  is 
indicated  especially  by  the  fact  that  human  sacri- 
fice (child  sacrifice)  is  shown  by  these  excavations 
to  have  been  very  common  among  the  Canaanites ; 
while  among  the  Hebrews  it  was  very  rare.  In 
fact,  no  traces  of  it  during  the  Hebrew  period 
were  found  at  Taanek,  while  at  Gezer  those  found 
were  only  in  the  form  of  oflferings  in  connection 
with  buildings.  '' Dagegen  ist  schon  jetzt  fast 
mit  Bestimmheit  zu  hehaupten,  dass  die  Spur  en 
von  Kinderopfern  nach  1200  [B.  C]  gans  selten 
werden,  fast  nnr  dock  in  der  Form  von  Bauopfern 
nachzuweisen  sind/'  ^ 

The  larger  number  of  Old  Testament  ideas 
come  in  the  group  where  the  resemblance  with 
the  other  Semitic  religions  is  much  less  than  in 
the  cases  already  cited.  Here  it  is  not  possible 
to  speak  very  definitely;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  reach  a  different  conclusion  from  the  preced- 
ing. In  cases  where  this  resemblance  is  close, 
the  cause  is  naturally  early  Semitic  inheritance. 
In  details,  it  is  quite  possible  that  there  has  been 
influence  or  borrowing.     It  is  also  possible  that 

'^  SelHn,  "Der  Ertrag  der  Ausgrabungen  ini  Orient,"  p.  34. 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  I93 

there  may  have  been  some  independent  develop- 
ment: starting  with  certain  ideas  common  to  the 
Semitic  mind,  the  different  nations  may  have 
moved  along  similar  lines  independently  of  each 
other. 

We  come  to  a  further  consideration  of  the  dis- 
tinctive teachings  of  the  Old  Testament,  those 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  Old  Testament,  with- 
out close  parallel  among  the  other  Semitic  re- 
ligions. Here  it  will  be  advisable  to  consider 
first  the  group  of  most  strongly  marked  individ- 
uality, in  which  are  included  the  teachings  which 
are  in  decided  contrast  with  the  other  religions. 
At  this  point  it  is  of  course  desirable  to  keep  in 
mind  the  limitations  of  our  knowledge,  i.  e.,  of 
the  material  available  for  comparison.  Yet  that 
consideration  does  not  justify  such  sweeping  state- 
ments as  those  of  Winckler,  that  all  doctrines  of 
the  Hebrews  were  derived  from  the  Babylonians : 
those  not  found  in  their  literature  will  yet  be 
found. ^  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  closest 
resemblances  of  the  Old  Testament  teachings  to 
the  Babylonian,  and  to  those  of  the  other  Semitic 
religions  as  well,  are  in  reference  to  the  lower 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament,   those  which   deal 

i"The  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,"  especially  p.  157^. 
N 


194  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

chiefly  with  the  formal  side;  while  the  distinc- 
tive teachings  in  the  Old  Testament  are  those 
which  pertain  to  the  highest  part  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, the  most  spiritual  and  ethical  side.  It  is 
these  highest  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  are  most  clearly  without  parallel  in  the 
other  Semitic  religions.  This  group  of  specially 
distinctive  teachings,  it  will  be  remembered,  in- 
cluded the  unity  of  God  (monotheism),  his 
spirituality,  his  ethical  completeness,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  man  through  direct  approach  to  him. 
Here  the  unity  of  God  is  the  condition  of  any 
exalted  conception  of  his  character;  his  spirit- 
uality and  ethical  completeness  pertain  to  the 
highest  features  of  any  possible  conception  of  his 
character;  while  the  salvation  of  man  through 
direct  access  to  him  is  a  salvation  in  harmony 
with  that  exalted  character,  more  fully  in  har- 
mony than  any  formal  way  of  salvation,  not  to 
say  any  magical  way,  could  possibly  be.  These 
things  are  not  only  a  part  of  the  highest  teach- 
ings of  the  Old  Testament,  but  they  pertain  to 
the  most  fundamental  portions  of  it. 

We  have  discussed  the  source  of  the  common 
elements  in  the  Old  Testament.  What  shall  be 
said  concerning  the  source  of  the  distinctive  ele- 


AMONG    THE    SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  I95 

ments?  These,  we  have  seen,  are  not  only  dif- 
ferent from  the  conceptions  of  the  other  Semitic 
rehgions,  they  are  far  superior  to  them.  And  yet 
the  Hebrews  were  not  superior  in  other  ways  to 
all  the  other  Semitic  nations.  The  Babylonians, 
at  any  rate,  were  undoubtedly  their  superiors  in 
education,  in  civilization,  and  in  material  pros- 
perity. Neither  did  the  Hebrews  possess  a  taste 
for  religious  thought  that  was  peculiar.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  they  possessed  this  in  general  to 
any  higher  degree  than  the  other  Semitic  nations ; 
all  were  religious,  in  action  and  in  thought.  There 
seems,  then,  to  be  no  human  cause  for  the  result 
that  is  clearly  evident.  What  could  be  expected 
from  human  nature  at  those  times  and  under  those 
circumstances  is  shown  by  the  religions  of  the 
other  Semitic  nations.  The  marked  superiority 
of  the  Old  Testament  teachings  in  reference  to 
that  which  is  most  fundamental  indicates  clearly, 
then,  that  here  a  new  cause  is  in  operation.  That 
cause,  it  seems  evident,  is  the  unique  presence  of 
God,  the  illumination  of  God  giving  perception  of 
spiritual  truth,  that  which  is  usually  called,  and 
fitly,  the  special  revelation  of  God. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed,  and  not  at  all 
contradicted,  by  the  many  teachings  in  which  the 


196  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Old  Testament  is  much  different  from  the  teach- 
ings of  the  other  Semitic  rehgions,  but  in  which 
the  difference  is  somewhat  less  marked  than  in 
these  cases  just  cited.  In  all  these  the  difference 
is  in  favor  of  the  Old  Testament;  the  teachings 
there  are  superior  to  the  teachings  of  these  other 
religions. 

From  what  has  already  been  said,  however,  the 
question  naturally  arises,  Why  is  there  in  the 
Old  Testament  such  a  combination  of  the  higher 
and  the  lower,  of  that  which  has  come  directly 
from  the  revelation  of  God  and  that  which  has 
come,  at  least  directly,  through  men,  through 
inheritance  from  Semitic  ancestors?  This  ques- 
tion may  be  considered  from  various  standpoints. 
It  is  often  considered  from  the  standpoint  of 
God :  in  giving  his  will  by  revelation,  why  did  he 
mingle  the  spiritual  knowledge  of  himself  with 
that  which  is  lower,  the  formal  ?  This  is  a  ques- 
tion, of  course,  which  it  is  difficult  to  answer 
fully;  no  one  is  able  to  speak  adequately  for  God 
on  such  a  question  as  this,  and  to  state  all  the 
reasons  which  may  have  entered  in.  But  a  study 
of  God's  dealings  with  men  elsewhere,  as  well  as 
among  the  Hebrews,  and  some  knowledge  of 
human  nature  justify  the  inference  that,  at  any 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  I97 

rate,  one  prominent  reason  for  such  a  course  was 
the  educational  principle  that  men  must  be  taught 
gradually,  that  the  new  truth  must  be  brought 
into  relation  with  the  old  belief,  that  the  new  must 
have  points  of  contact  with  the  old.  If  those  to 
whom  the  revelation  came  were  to  receive  it  in- 
telligently, and  there  is  no  reason  to  think  other- 
wise, this  general  principle  would  apply,  as  in 
other  relations.  For  the  more  detailed  working 
out  of  this  principle  it  is  better  to  turn  from  what 
God  must  have  done,  in  harmony  with  his  nature 
and  the  nature  of  man,  and  see  what  he  did,  to 
observe  how  in  reality  this  principle  works  itself 
out  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  see  how  the  new 
truth  actually  comes  into  relation  with  the  old 
view  in  the  experience  of  men.  Here  we  need  to 
notice  several  different  things,  in  their  applica- 
tion to  the  matter  before  us. 

We  observe  that  the  revelation  of  God's  truth 
to  an  individual  writer  or  speaker  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament was  not  a  full-orbed  sphere  of  truth:  a 
single  truth  or  a  few  great  truths  constitute  the 
individual  message.  There  were  manifold  limi- 
tations in  the  knowledge  of  truth  by  the  individual. 
It  was  distinctly  a  revelation  of  religious  trutli, 
not  historical  or  scientific.     And  within  the  re- 


198  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

ligious  realm  the  content  of  the  individual  con- 
tribution was  small,  comprising  at  the  most  in 
each  case  but  a  few  important  conceptions  of  the 
character  of  God  and  man's  relation  to  him.  This 
is  easily  seen  in  the  case  of  the  great  prophets, 
whose  individual  messages  were  limited  in  scope. 
This  may  fairly  be  considered  the  universal  rule, 
the  revelation  of  God  to  the  individual  writer  or 
speaker  of  the  Old  Testament  consisted  in  a  few 
things  unfolded  to  him.  Such  was  the  message, 
and  the  work  of  putting  this  in  form  for  popu- 
lar presentation,  and  of  adjusting  it  in  its  rela- 
tion to  other  truth  and  to  views  commonly  held 
by  the  people  was  a  task  in  which  the  human 
powers  came  into  prominent  use;  there  was  co- 
operation of  the  divine  and  the  human.  This 
work  of  adjustment  was  not  only  in  relation  to 
the  views  of  others,  but  to  his  own  as  well.  This 
meant  that  the  consequences  of  the  truth  he  pro- 
claimed were  only  partially  grasped  by  the  in- 
spired writer  or  speaker,  and  that  often  it  re- 
quired a  long  time  to  work  out  the  full  conse- 
quences of  certain  truth  proclaimed:  in  some 
cases  this  was  not  perfectly  done,  or  even  ap- 
proximately so,  in  Old  Testament  times.  Yet 
continually  the  progress  of  revelation  in  the  Old 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC   RELIGIONS  1 99 

Testament  resulted  not  only  in  the  proclamation 
of  new  phases  of  truth,  but  also  in  the  further 
adjustment  of  truth  already  proclaimed  to  the 
views  that  had  preceded  it. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  distinctive 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  centers  about  God, 
revealing  the  truth  that  he  is  one,  infinite,  spirit- 
ual, ethical,  and  revealing  that  man's  relation  to 
God  is  in  harmony  with  this,  that  sin  is  ethical, 
and  man's  relation  to  God  is  on  an  ethical  basis, 
not  a  ritual.  The  older,  common-Semitic,  idea 
was  that  the  gods  were  physical,  that  sin  was 
ritual,  and  that  forgiveness  was  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  sacrifice  or  magic.  Some  de- 
parture from  these  ideas  had  taken  place  before 
the  beginning  of  the  distinctive  Hebrew  thought, 
but  it  was  not  a  fundamental  departure.  The 
Hebrew  conception  began  with  a  higher  view  of 
God,  that  he  is  one,  spiritual,  and  ethical.  This 
displaced  entirely,  so  far  as  definite  statement  is 
concerned,  the  view  that  there  were  many  gods, 
and  that  they  were  physical,  material.  Some  of 
the  applications  of  this  truth  to  the  relation  of 
man  to  God  were  also  quickly  seen.  There  was 
speedy  condemnation  of  immoral  acts  in  the  serv- 
ice of  Yahweh,  such  as  unchastity,  and  also  of 


200  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

everything  magical :  these  things  were  seen  to  be 
utterly  opposed  to  the  exalted  ideas  of  God  which 
had  been  revealed.  So  also,  in  general,  everything 
that  is  clearly  of  a  superstitious  nature  is  forbid- 
den. But  the  attitude  toward  that  which  was 
formal,  the  ritual,  sacrifices,  ritual  sin,  regula- 
tions concerning  ceremonial  uncleanness,  etc.,  was 
quite  different.  These  were  retained  through  the 
whole  Old  Testament  period.  These  originally 
were  based  upon  an  idea  of  God  as  physical,  yet  in 
their  development  the  original  idea  had  been  con- 
siderably modified,  so  that  that  idea  was  less  ob- 
viously and  necessarily  inherent  than  in  the  prac- 
tices forbidden.  Evidently  they  were  never  felt, 
in  Old  Testament  times,  to  be  clearly  inconsistent 
with  the  exalted  conception  of  God  that  was  held. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  obvious  that  here  is  a  cere- 
monial conception  of  God  which  is  lower  than  the 
spiritual  and  ethical  teaching  found  elsewhere. 
These  elements,  however,  are  incorporated  with 
the  higher  idea  of  God,  and  never  eliminated. 
But  practically  their  scope  was  greatly  limited,  so 
that  they  had  to  do  with  the  national  relations, 
with  the  religion  as  a  State  religion,  while  in  the 
individual  life  they  had  less  importance.  His- 
torically, also,  it  is  obvious  that  to  the  thought  of 


AMONG   THE   SEMITIC    RELIGIONS  20I 

the  mass  of  the  people  this  formal  side  of  the  re- 
ligion was  the  one  for  which  they  had  special 
appreciation.  And  this  side  had  its  uses,  as  well 
as  its  injurious  effects,  in  giving  to  the  mass  of 
the  people  who  had  no  appreciation  for  anything 
higher  an  expression  for  their  religious  aspira- 
rations.  It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  this  side 
could  have  been  done  away,  in  Old  Testament 
times,  unless  there  had  been  a  much  fuller  ap- 
preciation by  the  people  of  the  spiritual  nature 
of  religion.  Even  in  the  progress  of  God's  reve- 
lation, it  is  only  gradually  that  the  higher  view 
triumphs  over  the  lower,  that  the  imperfect  gives 
way  to  the  adequate  expression  of  truth. 


A  SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

RELIGIOUS  TEXTS  AND  TRANSLATIONS 

GENERAL 

Cooke,  G.  A.  A  Text-Book  of  North  Semitic  Inscrip- 
tions, Moabite,  Hebrew,  Phoenician,  Aramaic,  Naba- 
tsean,  Palmyrene,  Jewish.     Oxford,  1903. 

Corpus  Inscriptionum  semiticarum,  ab  Academia  In- 
scriptionum  et  Litterarum  Humaniorum  conditum 
atque  digestum.  Paris.  Pars  Prima.  Inscriptiones 
Phoenicias  Continens.  Tomus  I  (4  parts),  1881,  1883, 
1885,  1887.  Tomus  II  (2  parts),  1890,  1899.  Pars 
Secunda,  Inscriptiones  Aramaicas  Continens.  Tomus  I 
(3  parts),  1889,  1893,  1902.  Pars  Quarta,  Inscriptiones 
Himyariticas  et  Sabaeas  Continens.  Tomus  I  (3  parts), 
1889,  1892,  1900.     Cited  as  CIS. 

Lidzbarski,  M.  Handbuch  der  nordsemitischen  Epi- 
graphik,  nebst  ausgewahlten  Inschriften.  I  and  II. 
Weimar,  1898. 

ASSYRIAN  AND  BABYLONIAN 

Banks,  E.  J.  Sumerisch-Babylonische  Hymnen  der 
von  George  Reisner  herausgegeben  Sammlung,  um- 
schrieben,  iibersetzt  und  erklart.     Breslau,  1897. 

Behrens,  E.  Assyrisch-Babylonische  Briefe  kult- 
ischen  Inhalts  aus  der  Sargonidenzeit.    Leipzig,  1906. 

Craig,  Jas.  A.  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Religious 
Texts.    I  and  II.    Leipzig,  1895-1897. 

Dhorme,  Paul.  Choix  de  Textes  Religieux  Assyro- 
Babyloniens.     Paris,  1907. 

203 


204  A    SELECTED    BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Gray,  C.  D.  The  Shamash  Religious  Texts.  Chicago, 
1901. 

Harper,  R.  R,  and  others.  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
Literature.    New  York,  1901.    Cited  as  ABL. 

Haupt,  Paul.  Akkadische  und  Sumerische  Keilschrift- 
texte.    Leipzig,  1881-1882. 

Hrozny,  Fr.  Sumerisch-Babylonische  Mythen  von 
dem  Gotte  Ninrag  (Ninib).    Berlin,  1903. 

Hussey,  Mary  L  Some  Sumerian-Babylonian  Hymns 
of  the  Berlin  Collection,  transcribed  and  interpreted, 
with  collation  of  the  original  tablets,  from  the  text 
published  by  George  Reisner.     Chicago,   1907. 

Jensen,  P.  Assyrisch-Babylonische  Mythen  und 
Epen.  Berlin,  1900.  (Vol.  VI,  i,  in  Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek.)     Cited  as  KB. 

King,  L.  W.  Babylonian  Magic  and  Sorcery,  being 
"  The  Prayers  of  the  Lifting  of  the  Hand."  London, 
1896. 

Knudtzon,  J.  A.  Assyrische  Gebete  an  den  Sonnen- 
gott  fiir  Staat  und  konigliches  Haus  aus  der  Zeit  Asar- 
haddons  und  Assurbanipals.     I  and  IL     Leipzig,  1893. 

Macmillan,  K.  D.  Some  Cuneiform  Tablets  bearing 
on  the  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  Leipzig, 
1906. 

Rawlinson,  H.  C.  A  Selection  from  the  Miscella- 
neous Inscriptions  of  Assyria.  Second  edition.  Lon- 
don, 1891.  (The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Western 
Asia,  IV.) 

Reisner,  George.  Sumerisch-Babylonische  Hymnen 
nach  Thontafeln  Griechischer  Zeit.     Berlin,  1896. 

Tallqvist,  K.  L.  Die  Assyrische  Beschworungsserie 
Maqlu.     Leipzig,  1894. 

Zimmern,  Heinrich.  Babylonische  Busspsalmen,  um- 
schrieben,  iibersetzt  und  erklart.     Leipzig,  1885. 

Zimmern,  Heinrich.  Babylonische  Hymnen  und 
Gebete  in  Auswahl,     Leipzig,  1905. 


A    SELECTED    BIBLIOGRAPHY  205 

Zimmern,  Heinrich.  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  der  Bab- 
ylonischen  Religion.     Leipzig,  1901. 

GENERAL  WORKS  ON  SEMITIC  RELIGION 

Barton,  G.  A.  A  Sketch  of  Semitic  Origins,  social 
and  religious.     New  York,  1902. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.  F.  Studien  zur  Semitischen  Relig- 
ionsgeschichte.     I  and  II.     Leipzig,  1876-1878. 

Curtiss,  S.  I.  Primitive  Semitic  Religion  To-day. 
Chicago,  1902. 

Lagrange,  M.  J.  £tudes  sur  les  Religions  Semitiques. 
Deuxieme  edition.     Paris,   1905. 

Saussaye,  Ch.  D.  L.  Lehrbuch  der  Religionsge- 
schichte.    I.    Tubingen,  1905. 

Smith,  W.  Robertson.  The  Religion  of  the  Semites. 
Second  edition.    London,  1894. 

Winckler,  Hugo.  Religionsgeschichtlicher  und  ge- 
schichtlicher  Orient.    Leipzig,  1906. 

WORKS  ON  INDIVIDUAL  RELIGIONS 

ASSYRIAN   AND  BABYLONIAN 

Fossey,  Ch.    La  Magie  Assyrienne.    Paris,  1903. 

Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.  The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria.     Boston,  1898. 

Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.  Die  Religion  Babyloniens  und 
Assyriens.  Vom  Verfasser  revidierte  und  wesentlich 
erweiterte  Uebersetzung.  I.  Giessen,  1905.  II  is  ap- 
pearing in  parts. 

Jeremias,  A.  Die  Babylonisch-Assyrischen  Vorstel- 
lungen  vom  Leben  nach  dem  Tode.    Leipzig,  1897. 

Jeremias,  A.  Holle  und  Paradies  bei  den  Babyloniern. 
Leipzig,  1899. 

Jeremias,  A.  The  Babylonian  Conception  of  Heaven 
and  Hell.     London,  1902. 


206  A    SELECTED    BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Jeremias,  A.  Monotheistische  Stromungen  innerhalb 
der  Babylonischen  Religion.    Leipzig,  1904. 

King,  L.  W.  Babylonian  Religion  and  Mythology. 
London,  1903. 

Morgenstern,  J.  The  Doctrine  of  Sin  in  the  Baby- 
lonian Religion.     Berlin,  1905. 

Sayce,  A.  H.  The  Origin  and  Growth  of  Religion  as 
Illustrated  by  the  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Babylonians. 
Third  edition.     London,  1891. 

Sayce,  A.  H.  The  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and 
Babylonia.    Edinburgh,  1902. 

Schrank,  W.  Babylonische  Siihnriten  besonders  mit 
Riicksicht  auf  Priester  und  Biisser.     Leipzig,  1908. 

Thompson,  R.  C.     Semitic  Magic.    London,  1908. 

Thompson,  R.  C.  The  Devils  and  Evil  Spirits  of 
Babylonia.    I  and  H.    London,  1903-1904. 

Weber,  O.  Die  Literatur  der  Babylonier  und  Assyrer. 
Ein  Ueberblick.    Leipzig,  1907. 

HEBREW 

Bennett,  W.  H.  The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    London,  1896. 

Davidson,  A.  B.  The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament. 
New  York,  1904. 

Dillmann,  A.  Handbuch  der  Alttestamentlichen  The- 
ologie.     Leipzig,  1895. 

Duf¥,  A.  The  Theology  and  Ethics  of  the  Hebrews. 
New  York,  1902. 

Kayser,  A.  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments.  Zweite 
Auflage.     Strassburg,  1894. 

Marti,  Karl.  Die  Religion  des  Alten  Testament  unter 
den  Religionen  des  Vorderen  Orients.     Tubingen,  1906. 

Marti,  Karl.  The  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 
London,  1907. 

Oehler,  G.  F.  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments. 
Dritte  Auflage.    I  and  IL    Stuttgart,  1891. 


A    SELECTED    BIBLIOGRAPHY  207 

Oehler,  G.  F.  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  Sec- 
ond edition.    I  and  H.    Edinburgh,  1884. 

Piepenbring,  Ch.  Theologie  de  I'Ancien  Testament. 
Paris,  1886. 

Piepenbring,  Ch,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament. 
New  York,  1893. 

Riehm,  Ed.  Alttestamentliche  Theologie.  Halle, 
1889. 

Schultz,  H.  Alttestamentliche  Theologie.  Die  Of- 
fenbarungsreligion  auf  ihrer  vorchristlichen  Entwickel- 
ungsstufe.    Fiinfte  Auflage.    Gottingen,  1896. 

Schultz,  H.  Old  Testament  Theology.  Translated 
from  the  Fourth  German  Edition  by  J.  A.  Paterson. 
I  and  II.     Edinburgh,  1898. 

Smend,  R.  Lehrbuch  der  Alttestamentlichen  Re- 
ligionsgeschichte.     Freiburg  und  Leipzig,  1893. 

ARABIC 

Weber,  O.    Arabien  vor  dem  Islam.    Leipzig,  1901. 
Wellhausen,   J.     Reste   Arabischen   Heidentums   gesam- 
melt  und  erlautert.    Zweite  Auflage.    Berlin,  1897. 

COMPARATIVE  WORKS 

Baethgen,  Fr.  Beitrage  zur  Semitischen  Religions- 
geschichte.  Der  Gott  Israels  und  die  Gotter  der  Heiden. 
Berlin,  1888. 

Hommel,  Fritz.  Der  Gestirndienst  der  alten  Araber 
und  die  altisraelitische  Ueberlieferung.     Miinchen,  1901. 

Jeremias,  A.  Das  Alte  Testament  im  Lichte  des  Alten 
Orients.     Zweite  Auflage.    Leipzig,  1906. 

Nielsen,  D.  Die  altarabische  Mondreligion  und  die 
mosaische  Ueberlieferung.     Strassburg,  1904. 

Rogers,  Robert  W.  The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria,  especially  in  its  relations  to  Israel.  New  York, 
1908. 


208  A    SELECTED    BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Schrader,  E.  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testa- 
ment. Dritte  Auflage,  neu  bearbeitet  von  H.  Zimmern 
und  H.  Winckler.    Berlin,  1903.    Cited  as  KAT. 

Sellin,  E.  Der  Ertrag  der  Ausgrabungen  im  Orient 
fiir  die  Erkenntnis  der  Entwicklung  der  Religion  Is- 
raels.   Leipzig,  1905. 

Sellin,  E.  Die  alttestamentliche  Religion  im  Rahmen 
der  andern  altorientalischen.    Leipzig,  1908. 

Vigouroux,  F.  La  Bible  et  les  Decouvertes  Modernes 
en  Palestine,  en  Egypte,  et  en  Assyrie.  Quatrieme  edi- 
tion.   I-IV.     Paris,  1884-1885. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 
AND    NAMES 


Abraham,  67. 

Abyssinia,  18. 

Adad,  44. 

Adadnirari   III,  45,  64,  66. 

Adam,  25. 

Adapa,  25. 

Aksum,   18. 

Allah,  94, 

Allatu,  63,  167. 

Altar,  100,  106  seq.,  113^,  116, 
118,   I2if,    149,    160. 

Alu,  180. 

Amenhotep  IV,  46, 

Animism,  3of,  35,  37- 

An-Shar,  59. 

Anthropomorphism,  37  seq.,  51, 
127,    186. 

Anu,  42,  59. 

Anunnaki,   177. 

Aralu:  the  Babylonian  under- 
world, 63,  166  seq.,  175  seq., 
181;  food  and  drink  in,  176 
seq. 

Ashipu,  21. 

Ashur,  the  Assyrian  city,  42,  65, 

lOI. 

Ashur,  the  Assyrian  god,  24,  42f, 

55,   64  seq.,   87. 
Ashurbanipal,   19,  22  seq.,  28. 
Astrology,  23. 
Aten,  46. 
Atonement,    96,    107,    m.     "6, 

121,  128  seq.,   161. 
Atrahasis,  25. 
Azazel,   134. 
O 


Babbar,  43. 

Babylonian  exile,  79, 133, 181, 189, 

Baru,  21. 

Bel,  42  seq.,  59. 

Bel-Marduk,  43. 

Blood,    of    sacrifices,     102,     113, 

117,  i2if,  127,  129,  134,  136. 
Bloodless     offering,     losf,     110, 

ii8f. 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  149. 
Borrowing,     of     religious     ideas, 

29  seq.,    188   seq. 
Borsippa,    102. 
Burial,   166,   i75f.   178. 
Burnt  offering,  96,  loi,  106  seq., 

130,   135  seq. 

Carthage,  25f,  104. 

Cassites,  15. 

Cave,   as  burial-place,   166. 

Centralization,  of  worship,  52. 
I  oof. 

Ceremonial  cleanness  and  un- 
cleanness,  71  seq.,  92,  95  seq., 
I3if,   200. 

Chaldeans,  15. 

Chronology,    28f. 

City  gods.  36,  42.  62. 

City-State,    17  ■ 

Clan  god   (see  tribal  gods). 

Clan  sacrifice  (see  tribal  sacri- 
fices). 

Common-Semitic    ideas:     48,    61, 
75,    89,    95,    98    seq..    185    seq., 
199;   origin  of,    188   st-q. 
209 


2IO  INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS   AND    NAMES 


Confession,  of  sin,  21,  88. 

Conquest,  of  Canaan  by  He- 
brews,   190   seq. 

Covenant,  with  Yahweh,  i39f, 
156,   is8f. 

Cradle,   of  the   Semites,    13. 

Creation:  in  Babylonian  ac- 
counts, 23,  87;  in  the  Old 
Testament,   87. 

Creator:  Babylonian  gods  as,  59, 
87;    Yahweh  as,   58,  60,  87. 

Cyprus,  25. 

Cyrus,   15. 

Daily  sacrifice,   102,   138. 

Damascus,    17. 

Darkness,  in  underworld,  167, 
i69f,  179. 

Death,  37,  60,  82,  89,  i34,  I39f, 
142,   155,   174,   i76f,  179. 

Deification  of  king,  178. 

Deluge:  in  Babylonian  account, 
24f;  in  Old  Testament  ac- 
count, 25. 

Demons:  20,  91  seq.,  142  seq., 
150,  171,  180;  present  in  sick- 
ness, 92. 

Denunciation,  of  sacrifice,  152  seq. 

Distinctive  Old  Testament  teach- 
ings: 98,  193  seq.,  199;  source 
of,   194  seq. 

Dust,  in  underworld,    167. 

E,  Elohistic  Code,   149. 

Ea,  42,  44f,  59. 

Education,   104. 

Elamites,   15. 

Enuma  elish,   23,   87. 

Epics,  of  the  Babylonians,  20,  24! 

Eridu,  24,  87. 

Esarhaddon,  22. 

Eshmunazar,  73,  168. 

Esoteric    religious    doctrine,    47. 

Etana,  25. 

Eternity,  divine,  57  seq.,  76,  188. 


Ethical:  character  of  religion, 
50,  83f,  89f,  94f,  97f;  com- 
pleteness of  deity,  49,  70,  74f, 
78,  187,  194;  divine  character, 
48  seq.,  75,  83f,  97f,  187,  I99f. 

Ethiopic  language,  18. 

Expiation,  of  sin  (see  atone- 
ment). 

Expulsion,  from  tribe,   139. 

Ezekiel,  book  of,  152. 

Faithfulness,  divine,  75  seq.,  80, 

188. 
Fall,  of  man,  88. 
Fee,  of  priests,  123. 
Firstfruits,   118. 
Forgiveness,     divine,     83f,     149, 

159,  199. 
Future  life:  82,  99,  165  seq,,  186, 

190;  rewards  and  punishments 

in,  175  seq.,  186. 

Gift,  to  deity,  107,  iii  seq.,  118, 

124,   128,   146,   158. 
Gilgamesh,  24,  175,  177. 
Grace,  divine,  83f. 
Gradations,  divine,  42   seq.,   55, 
Grave,   166,   168. 
Guilt  offering,    iisf,    ii8f,    I2if, 

124,   130,   135  seq. 

Hadad,  169. 

Hadramaut,   17. 

Hammurabi,  23,  25,  41,  49,  81. 

Haupt,   109. 

Heaven,  52,  56. 

Heretic  king,  46. 

High  places,  loi. 

Holiness,  70  seq.,  94. 

Holocaust,  108. 

Home,  of  the  Semites,  13. 

Human  sacrifice,    107,    113,    123, 

135,   192. 
Hymns,  of  the  Babylonians,  2of, 

143. 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS    AND    NAMES  211 


Ideographic  writing,  31. 

Idolatry,    106. 

Images,  divine,  54,  100. 

Immoral  gods,   75,    187. 

Incantation,  64,  ^^,  8j,  103,  126, 
142   seq.,    179.    187. 

Incense  offering,  117^. 

Individual:  in  relation  to  d^ity, 
lit  79ft  91;  i"^  relation  to  sac- 
rifice,  loif,  112,   i37f,   151- 

Infinitude,    divine,    57,    i99- 

Ira,  25. 

Irkalla,  167. 

Isaac,  134. 

Ishtar,  75,  100,  167. 

Jastrow,  31,  41,  167. 
Jealousy,  divine,  67. 
Jerusalem,   100. 
Jinns,  41,  84. 
Job,  152. 

Jonah,  book  of,  83. 
Judgment,  after  death,  180. 
Justice,  divine,  38,  63,  78  seq. 

Kalkhi,  64f. 
Kataban,   17. 
Ki-Shar,  59. 
Knowledge,  divine,  68f. 
Kutha,   102. 

Labartu,  20. 

Lagash,  100. 

Lagrange,  48. 

Langdon,  109. 

Levitical   legislation,   98,   153- 

Leviticus,  book  of,  i47- 

Libation,   no,   113,   ii7,   172. 

Lifting  of  the  hand,  prayers  of, 
20. 

Limitation,  of  the  efficacy  of  sac- 
rifice, 141,  147.  149,  153  seq., 
i85f. 

Liver,  in   Babylonian   divination, 

22. 


Local  gods,   36,   42,   48,   62f,  64, 

67f,   80,   100. 
Love,    divine,   48f,   Saf,    188. 

Magic,  ^^,  80,  82,  84,  126,  133. 
i42f,  145  seq.,  i78f,   194.  i99f- 

Majesty,   divine,   57- 

Maqlu,   20. 

Marduk:  of  Babylon,  23f,  42  seq., 
65,  87,   165;  of  Eridu,  24,  87. 

Marseilles  tablet,  25,  123. 

Maspero,  45. 

Mat,  180. 

Mercy,  divine,  83f,  I49f.  i55, 
159. 

Mesha,   26. 

Messianic  teaching,  i65f,  187. 

Migration:  Arabic,  14;  Aramaic, 
i4f;  Babylonian,  \i,i\  Canaan- 
ite,    14;   Southern   Arabic,    15. 

Minseans,   i7f.    102. 

Moabite  Stone,  26. 

Monarchical  tendency,  among 
deities,  43,  48,   55- 

Monolatry,  40. 

Monotheism:  40  seq.,  75,  I94'. 
ancient  Oriental,  47;  approxi- 
mations to,  41    seq.,    187. 

jSIorgenstern,    90. 

Muhammad,  2T,  93f. 

:Muhammadanism,  50. 

Myths,  of  the  Babylonians,  20, 
24f,  40,  62. 

Nabu,  44f,  63  seq. 

Nabuapaliddin,   124. 

Name,  of  Yahweh,  40. 

Nannar,  43. 

National    gods,    48,    55.    62,    68, 

80. 
National  sacrifices,  loif,  137  seq., 

151,   200. 
Nations,   in    relation   to   Yahweh, 

60,  79f.  83. 
Nature  gods,  38,  50  seq.,  59.  75- 


212  INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS   AND    NAMES 


Nature  of  man,  S^i. 
Nazirite,   95 f. 
Nehemiah,   147. 
Nergal,  44,  63,  167. 
Nielsen,  48f,  75. 
Nineveh,  16,  65,  102. 
Ninib,   44. 

Omens,  Babylonian,  20  seq.,  103. 
Omnipotence,      divine,      57,      60 

seq.,  188. 
Omnipresence,    divine,    57,    Cyi, 

188. 
Omniscience,  divine,  57,  68f,  i88. 
Oracles,  Babylonian,  22. 
Osiris,  82,  169,  i79f. 

P,  Priest  Code,   123,    140,   i47f. 
Panammu,  169,  178, 
Pantheism,  39,  45  seq.,  55,   180. 
Peace    offering,     loi,     106    seq., 

137. 
Personality,   divine,    35,    38   seq., 

48,    51,    53,    186. 
Philosophical  speculation,  39,  46. 
Power,    divine,    53,    55,    60    seq., 

72. 
Prayers:  Babylonian,  2of,  84,  88, 

143,  146;  Egyptian,  179. 
Priestess,  22. 
Priestly    legislation     (see    Leviti- 

cal  legislation). 
Priests,    22,    96,    102    seq.,    io8f, 

III,    116,    118    seq.,    121    seq., 

130,    171. 
Prostitution,   71,  75,   199. 
Psalms:     Babylonian,     2of,     143; 

Babylonian  penitential,  21,  69, 

88. 
Punishment,  divine,  76f,  79f,  89, 

9if,   96,    i4of,    144,    I49f,    155, 

173  seq. 

Ra,  169,  i78f. 

Rebellion,    against    God,    140. 


Redemption,  99. 

Religious  literature:   Arabic,   27; 

Aramaic,    26f;    Assyrian,    i9f; 

Babylonian,    19    seq.;    Hebrew, 

26;    Moabite,    26;    Phoenician, 

25;      Southern      Arabic,      27; 

Syriac,  27. 
Reparation,    with    guilt    offering, 

136. 
Repentance,  155  seq. 
Resurrection,  181  f,  186. 
Revelation:    195    seq.,;    progress 

of,  i98f,  201. 
Righteousness,  divine,  49,  72,  74, 

78,   188. 

Sabaeans,  i7f. 

Sacrifice:  22,  40,  53,  77,  88f,  93, 

99  seq.,  143,  146  seq.,  172,  185, 
187,  189  seq.,  I99f;  as  opus 
operatum,  148;  different  kinds 
of,  106  seq.;  materials  of,  104 
seq.;  meaning  of,  106,  125 
seq.;   place   of,    loof;   time   of, 

100  seq. 

Sacrificial    meal,    106,    iii,    114, 

123,  137. 
Sacrificial   regulations,    119  seq. 
Salvation,     99     seq.,     185,     187, 

194. 
Samuel,  172. 
Sayce,  3of,  66,  180. 
Schrank,  131. 

Shalmaneser  II,  64,  66,  81. 
Shamash,  22,  29,  38,  43f,  63,  66, 

78,  8 if. 
Sheol,  67,  169  seq.,  i8of. 
Showbread,    119. 
Shukamuna,   44. 
Shurpu,   20,   90. 
Sidon,    168. 
Sin,  21,  69,  71,   79,  83,  87  seq., 

99,    107,    113,    128,    130,    132, 

135    seq.,    144,    146,    154    seq., 

173,   186,   189,   I99f. 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS    AND    NAMES  2I3 


Sin  offering,  96,  iisf,  118  seq., 
124,    130,    134   seq.,    137,    140, 

158. 

Sin,  the  Babylonian  god,  43f. 

Sins:  done  unwittingly,  140,  147 
seq.;  of  deliberate  purpose,  140, 
147  seq. 

Sippar,   102. 

Smith,  93,  III,  115. 

Solomon,  52. 

Spheres,    of  divine  activity,   63f. 

Spirituality,  divine,  35,  51  seq., 
127,   187,   194,   i99f. 

Substitutionary  idea,  in  sacri- 
fice,  114,   133  seq. 

Sukh,   44. 

Sumerians,  15,  3of. 

Sumero-Akkadian    literature,    31. 

Superstition,  45. 

Syncretism,    religious,    43,    48. 


Tabnith,    168. 

Temple:    21,    100,    143;    in 
Testament,   52,   100,    159. 
Thank  offering,    152. 
Theophanies,  of  Yahweh,   52 
Tiamat,   24. 
Tiglathpileser  III,   17,  66. 


Old 


Totemism,  37,   112,   114. 
Transcendence,    divine,    39,    ssf. 
Triad,  divine,  59. 
Tribal  gods,  91,  94,  111,  137,  140. 
Tribal    sacrifices,    iii    seq.,    137 
seq. 

Unity,   divine,   35,    40   seq.,    187, 

194.  199. 
Universality,  of  sin,  88. 
Ur,  67. 
Ushebtis,  180. 
Utnapishtim,  24f. 
Utukki  limnuti,  20. 

Votive  inscriptions,   27. 

Wellhausen,   94. 

Winckler,  14,  193. 

Witches,  92f,   133. 

Worship:  astral,  36,  48,  50;  of 
ancestors,  37;  of  natural  phe- 
nomena,  36. 

Zamama,  44. 
Zammaru,    21. 
Zenjirli,   26. 
Zu,  25. 


INDEX  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
REFERENCES 


PAGE 

Genesis  8  :  20 127 

Genesis  28:  15 67 

Exodus    15:  18 58 

Exodus   21  :  14 149 

Exodus  32 i49£ 

Leviticus  2  :   11 106 

Leviticus  3  :   17 106 

Leviticus   12  :  6,  8 96 

Leviticus     14:   19 96 

Leviticus     15:   15 96 

Leviticus    16:  21,   26,   28,..    134 

Leviticus    17:  11 121,  129 

Numbers   6  :  9-1 1 95 

Numbers    6:  11,    14 96 

Numbers    15 149 

Numbers    15  :  22-31 147 

Numbers    15:27-31 140 

Numbers    15:  30 i4of,   150 

Numbers    15:32-36 150 

Numbers  19:  13,  20 96 

Numbers   25 150 

Deuteronomy    18 145 

Deuteronomy   18:   12,   14...    145 

I     Samuel    2:6 171 

I    Samuel  21  :  5 -jz 

1  Samuel    28:8-19 172 

2  Samuel    12:23 170 

I    Kings   8  :  2^ 52 

Job     I  :  5 152 

Job  7  :  9f 170 

Job  10:  2lf 169 

Job  16  :  22 170 

Job   19  :  25-27 181 

Job  42  :  8 15a 


PAGE 

Psalm  6  :  5 171 

Psalm    10:  16 58 

Psalm  16 181 

Psalm    20  :  3 1 52 

Psalm    24:  3-6 159 

Psalm    26  :  6 160 

Psalm    40:6-8 158 

Psalm    49 181 

Psalm  50:   5,  8-14,   16-21...    158 

Psalm    50:   i2f 127 

Psalm   51  :   16,   17 157 

Psalm  51  :  19 151 

Psalm    54:  6 151 

Psalm    56:  12 151 

Psalm    65  :  3 159 

Psalm  66  :  13,  15 151 

Psalm  Ti 181 

Psalm    78  :  38 159 

Psalm    79  :  9 159 

Psalm    85  :  2 159 

Psalm    96:8 151 

Psalm   103:   17 58 

Psalm  107  :  22 151 

Psalm  115:   17 171 

Psalm  116:  17 151 

Psalm   118  :  27 151 

Psalm   139:  5-10 67 

Psalm    139  :  8 171 

Proverbs  7  :   14 151 

Proverbs   11  :  7 181 

Proverbs   14  :  32 181 

Proverbs  15  :  8 154 

Proverbs  17:   i 151 

Proverbs  21  :  3 157 

214 


INDEX    OF    OLD   TESTAMENT    REFERENCES    215 


PAGE 

Proverbs    21  :  27 154 

Ecclesiastes    9:2 152 

Ecclesiastes  9:  sf,    10 170 

Isaiah  i  :  11-17 156 

Isaiah  i  :  16 96 

Isaiah  i  :  18-20 157 

Isaiah  2  :  19,  21 79 

Isaiah    3  :  I3 79 

Isaiah    6  :  5 96 

Isaiah    10  :  23 79 

Isaiah    14  :  26 79 

Isaiah  19:  21 151,  153 

Isaiah   26:  19 182 

Isaiah    28  :  22 79 

Isaiah     33:  14-16 159 

Isaiah    38:   17 159 

Isaiah     40 60 

Isaiah    41  :  4 58 

Isaiah    43  :  2 67 

Isaiah    43:  10 58 

Isaiah    43:  13 60 

Isaiah    43  :  23f 151 

Isaiah    44  :  6 58 

Isaiah    44  :  22 159 

Isaiah    45  :  9 60 

Isaiah  48  :  12 58 

Isaiah    51:6 58 

Isaiah    56:  7 151 

Isaiah   66  :  3f 154 

Jeremiah  6  :  20 154 

Jeremiah    T  :  22 191 

Jeremiah  17  :  26 151.  I53 

Jeremiah    18 61 

Jeremiah    23:9 73 


PAGB 

Jeremiah  23  :  23! 67 

Jeremiah  31  :  29,   30 80 

Jeremiah   33:8 96 

Jeremiah    33  :   11 151,  153 

Jeremiah    33:   18 151,  153 

Jeremiah  50 72 

Jeremiah    51 t2 

Lamentations  4  :   i4f 96 

Ezekiel  18 80 

Ezekiel    20  :  40 151 

Ezekiel  37 181 

Daniel  9  :  27 151 

Daniel   12  :  2 182 

Hosea    3  :  4 151,  153 

Hosea  4  :  i3£,  19 154 

Hosea  6  :  6 156 

Hosea    8:  13 154 

Hosea    9  :  4 151,  153 

Joel    I  :  9,    13 151 

Joel    2  :  14 151 

Amos     3  :  2 79 

Amos  4:  4f 154 

Amos     5:  i4f 156 

Amos    5:  16-20 155 

Amos    5:22-24 155 

Amos  5  :  24 156 

Amos    s  :  25 15S.  191 

Amos   9  :  2-4 67 

Amos  9  :  7 6of 

Micah   3 157 

Micah  6  :  6-8 i57 

Micah    7:  19 159 

Malachi    i  :  7-10 151 

Malachi  3:  3f 151 


DATE  DUE 

■.Ji|^&a^S!Hfe*fe, 

****. 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

